docs: converge commercial gap authority through #560

[seonghobae]

Finding and ownership

#559 is the sole cross-lane writer for docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md and its executable documentation-authority tests. Feature lanes retain their source boundaries; historical baseline blobs in feature branches are not authoritative here.

Protected source is now GitHub-verified main@97c1562b896ddb4236d3e223693c56bfb119ce5e. It contains the normal integration of #560 and the later normal integration of #567. #559 has ordinarily/non-force reconverged to that protected source; current exact head is f9afdec0a3a8bbce2e02b66898ba5edc4e86835e.

On this exact, application CI 34305458074 and reviewer-ci 34305458205 are terminal SUCCESS, required Security Scan 34305458120 is queued, and patch-validator-image 34305458358 is in progress. Predecessor #559 GREEN on earlier heads does not transfer. Keep Draft until this unchanged exact obtains fresh terminal four-GREEN and review authority remains clean.

The baseline delta binds #560 as protected integrated history while ADR 0015 remains Proposed and durable lifecycle/restart evidence remains successor issue #561. The current protected Node lock still carries the Vitest vulnerability exposed by #562's image evidence; issue #568 owns that foundation defect and Draft #569 is the current repair lane. Do not convert image/security evidence from the vulnerable protected lock into release readiness.

Moving central observation remains .github/main@7fd571dbcdbae6acf29d8f4ee704d7ba6297e4db; Noema's reviewed immutable central consumer pin remains c9052e607e5f3cc76e73207e7786b21500721b79. context-graph-contracts#27 and appguardrail#1099 remain foreign-owner prerequisites. AppGuardrail/quarantine references are scanner/isolation evidence, EgressWeave remains outbound owner, Keyverse remains identity/secret-handle owner, and provider/model routing remains contextual-orchestrator.

No release/publication/signature/reproducibility/rollback completion is inferred from documentation convergence.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Draft PR not reviewed

Draft PRs are not automatically reviewed by default.

• Trigger a manual review

To automatically review draft PRs, update your CodeRabbit configuration:

reviews:
  auto_review:
    drafts: true

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

Fresh maintenance-lane coordination: #562 (25ccd849237961416cc6975990dcd9ca34ef78b0) and newly opened #563 (46bec70bcc2aca78f9fdda59973c530abfa25555) are both now Draft. #562 contains the hosted pip check RED→lockstep repair and advances both httpx2/httpcore2 to 2.12.0; #563 only advances httpcore2 to 2.10.0 and is therefore a prospective superseded delta, but it is intentionally left open until #562's unchanged successor exact is fully verified. Neither maintenance lane may move protected main ahead of current source prerequisite #560. This does not change #559 source: after #560 integrates, #559 still must ordinary/non-force reconverge from resulting protected main and rewrite the active-candidate baseline before fresh gates/merge.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-09T03:41:39.578156Z	bca3e68	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: bca3e6826e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Refresh the protected-source SHA after reconvergence

When this commit is applied, its parent is af8e1a36, and 97c1562b (which includes the #567 handoff changes) is already in that protected lineage, so describing the older post-#560 merge e3aa77c as the current protected source is stale at introduction rather than merely becoming stale later. The updated trust-authority test also hard-codes this obsolete value, allowing the documentation contract to pass while omitting later protected changes; record the verified current/construction snapshot or label e3aa77c only as #560's historical merge.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L140-L148

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Track the active Vitest vulnerability in the gap register

While package-lock.json still resolves Vitest 4.1.9—the vulnerability that this commit's own description assigns to issue #568 and draft PR #569—this replacement row reduces patch-validator work to operational publication, and the new baseline contains no Vitest, #568, or #569 entry at all. Because this table is presented as the current commercial gap register, its consumers and executable documentation tests lose the active remediation owner and can treat generic image/publication evidence as sufficient despite the vulnerable lock; retain an explicit dependency-remediation status and require the corrected lock before publication.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L22-L28

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Reconcile the canonical documents with the merged status

After declaring these files to be the requirements and boundary authority and recording #560 as protected history, the commit leaves docs/CONTEXT_MAP.md describing the external-extension slice as candidate truth pending protected integration and docs/TRACEABILITY.md marking it as an active PR whose protected maturity is still pending. The new architecture test checks only that the filenames appear in this baseline, so it passes despite these contradictory status authorities; update the canonical documents and their contract assertions as part of this convergence.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Do not describe descriptor metadata as an issued pilot grant

For an approved_for_pilot descriptor with no explicit Policy / Approval authority, external-extension-policy-approval-port.test.ts requires admission to fail, and ADR 0015 explicitly says repository source contains no default pilot grant; an explicit policy may also authorize active, so there is no source-issued grant capped at pilot. Describing one here misstates the authorization boundary and could lead consumers to treat source metadata as limited admission authority; say instead that descriptor fields can only narrow an independently issued policy grant.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.