EM-XCT-05 · Enterprise profiles · Published 0.1.0

Enterprise Disclosure Review

Describe exact packages of single-object metadata projections, preserve attributed joint-disclosure reviews, and check their applicability under explicit current context.

4 bundles · 8 layers · 24 findings · 24 questions

Required adoption limits

Preflight record, native envelope and full snapshot independently against the 256 KiB cap: a valid near-limit record may not fit its envelope or snapshot. Native installation is only five operational files; read the complete pinned package and adoption addendum before use. Production capacity and broad EM-XCT-05 remain unimplemented.

Publication addendum and exact limits

Use in a Company Dimension

Start with one exact metadata proposal and one attributed review. Pin source/schema/shape/classification and audience/purpose/environment/prior-release/custody context. Preserve immutable revisions and inspect them against independently resolved current governance state. Three synthetic new-Dimension examples exercise the explicit native binding.

Research assurance: reviewable-draft. This is a bounded original companion. No result grants access, serves source values, proves privacy or executes disposal. Current authority, pin resolution, snapshot completeness and custody remain host responsibilities. Adoption limits.

Bundles → Layers → Findings → Questions

Collect the expected evidence for each question. Unknown context remains explicit. Listed actions confer no operational permission.

DR-B-identityIdentity and classification2 layers

Identity and classification for an exact metadata proposal and attributed joint review.

DR-L-subjectObjects and proposal boundary3 findings

Objects and proposal boundary with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F01

Which single object does each member describe?

Coverage: local-structure; external identity truth.

Questions
  1. DR-Q01 Which single object does each member describe?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • One qualified source pin per member; locally unique member key
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • One qualified source pin per member; locally unique member keyEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Validate exact member grammar; ask domain steward for identity evidence. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F02

Which exact source revision and schema were used?

Coverage: local-equality; host resolution.

Questions
  1. DR-Q02 Which exact source revision and schema were used?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Source and schema pins plus proposal capture time
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Source and schema pins plus proposal capture timeEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Compare exact pins; request independently resolved source metadata. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F03

Is this a projection, a package or a domain aggregate?

Coverage: modeled boundary; calculation outside scope.

Questions
  1. DR-Q03 Is this a projection, a package or a domain aggregate?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Proposal boundary; one object per member; separately owned aggregate definition
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Proposal boundary; one object per member; separately owned aggregate definitionEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Keep member/package identities distinct; ask domain owner for aggregate calculation. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-L-classificationClassification references3 findings

Classification references with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F04

Which classification binds every selected field?

Coverage: local cardinality; external binding interpretation.

Questions
  1. DR-Q04 Which classification binds every selected field?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • One or more exact classification-binding pins per field; external scheme and term
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • One or more exact classification-binding pins per field; external scheme and termEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Reject missing bindings; ask classification authority for pinned scheme and term. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F05

Who may correct or downgrade a classification?

Coverage: host-only authority; no classification mutation.

Questions
  1. DR-Q05 Who may correct or downgrade a classification?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Current classification authority and correction evidence
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Current classification authority and correction evidenceEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Request a governed correction; do not change an opaque pin as a downgrade. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F06

Are schemes or compartments comparable?

Coverage: deferred comparison engine.

Questions
  1. DR-Q06 Are schemes or compartments comparable?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Explicit pinned mapping and combination rule from classification owner
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Explicit pinned mapping and combination rule from classification ownerEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Host evaluator returns insufficient-context for unsupported comparison. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority. inspect() does not perform this check; applicable-review does not establish comparison or custody resolution.
DR-B-disclosureProposed disclosure and current authority2 layers

Proposed disclosure and current authority for an exact metadata proposal and attributed joint review.

DR-L-shapeClosed metadata shape3 findings

Closed metadata shape with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F07

Which fields are proposed for disclosure?

Coverage: local declaration; no payload serving.

Questions
  1. DR-Q07 Which fields are proposed for disclosure?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Exact ordered field names/kinds, shape/schema pins and complete current declarations
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Exact ordered field names/kinds, shape/schema pins and complete current declarationsEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Validate metadata selection; ask host for separate current serving authorization. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F08

Can nested values introduce another object?

Coverage: local syntax; scalar truth is host attestation.

Questions
  1. DR-Q08 Can nested values introduce another object?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Closed scalar source-field attestation; declared top-level field grammar
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Closed scalar source-field attestation; declared top-level field grammarEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Reject nested/wildcard field names; require separate member for another object. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F09

Can notes, identifiers, counts or errors reveal withheld facts?

Coverage: manual assessment; no leakage detector.

Questions
  1. DR-Q09 Can notes, identifiers, counts or errors reveal withheld facts?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Residual-risk review and restricted diagnostic-channel design
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Residual-risk review and restricted diagnostic-channel designEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Record concern; keep reports internal; ask host to assess side channels. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-L-authorityCurrent authority and freshness3 findings

Current authority and freshness with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F10

What current grant permits this audience and purpose?

Coverage: outside implementation; mandatory before serving.

Questions
  1. DR-Q10 What current grant permits this audience and purpose?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Actual host policy/grant decision with fresh subject/object/operation/context
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Actual host policy/grant decision with fresh subject/object/operation/contextEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Request host decision; no review status establishes a grant. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F11

Has context changed since assessment?

Coverage: local exact comparison; host completeness.

Questions
  1. DR-Q11 Has context changed since assessment?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Current proposal, member, classification, audience, purpose, environment, prior-release and custody pins
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Current proposal, member, classification, audience, purpose, environment, prior-release and custody pinsEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Compare all declared current inputs; return stale on disagreement. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F12

May an earlier result be reused now?

Coverage: local applicability; cache/atomic serving external.

Questions
  1. DR-Q12 May an earlier result be reused now?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Fresh authorized snapshot, current clock and complete active review set
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Fresh authorized snapshot, current clock and complete active review setEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Reevaluate; retain old snapshot only as historical evidence. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-B-compositionJoint review and aggregate boundaries2 layers

Joint review and aggregate boundaries for an exact metadata proposal and attributed joint review.

DR-L-membershipExact joint context3 findings

Exact joint context with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F13

Which exact component set was jointly reviewed?

Coverage: local exact pinning.

Questions
  1. DR-Q13 Which exact component set was jointly reviewed?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Review proposal pin and exact ordered member/field set
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Review proposal pin and exact ordered member/field setEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Refuse review for a different revision/digest; request new review after change. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F14

What combined inference risk was assessed?

Coverage: local attribution; no inference proof.

Questions
  1. DR-Q14 What combined inference risk was assessed?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Attributed verdict, method, evidence, residualRisk and bounded validity
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Attributed verdict, method, evidence, residualRisk and bounded validityEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Keep rejection/inconclusive/conflict; request qualified human assessment. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F15

Which earlier releases were considered?

Coverage: local context binding; not all recipient knowledge.

Questions
  1. DR-Q15 Which earlier releases were considered?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Exact known priorReleases context and its assumptions
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Exact known priorReleases context and its assumptionsEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Request missing release history; stale if current context differs. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-L-aggregateDomain aggregates and assessment scope3 findings

Domain aggregates and assessment scope with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F16

Who owns a source aggregate and its calculation?

Coverage: outside implementation.

Questions
  1. DR-Q16 Who owns a source aggregate and its calculation?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • External aggregate identity, grain, lineage and semantic owner
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • External aggregate identity, grain, lineage and semantic ownerEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Ask source domain owner; never invent calculated values here. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F17

Which privacy mechanism or grain applies?

Coverage: deferred privacy mechanisms.

Questions
  1. DR-Q17 Which privacy mechanism or grain applies?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Pinned external mechanism, parameters and evaluation evidence
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Pinned external mechanism, parameters and evaluation evidenceEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Require a separately verified implementation and explicit limits. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F18

Does a review apply to another recipient or environment?

Coverage: local binding; no transferable grant.

Questions
  1. DR-Q18 Does a review apply to another recipient or environment?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Exact audience/purpose/environment and review proposal pin
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Exact audience/purpose/environment and review proposal pinEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Return stale when context differs; obtain new proposal/review. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-B-continuityContinuity and custody2 layers

Continuity and custody for an exact metadata proposal and attributed joint review.

DR-L-storageExpiry and custody boundaries3 findings

Expiry and custody boundaries with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F19

When must serving stop versus evidence remain?

Coverage: local review expiry only.

Questions
  1. DR-Q19 When must serving stop versus evidence remain?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Separate current serving policy and custody instructions; review expiry
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Separate current serving policy and custody instructions; review expiryEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Reevaluate review window; ask host to stop serving and custodian to decide retention. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F20

Who controls source, output, cache and backup copies?

Coverage: outside implementation; opaque context pin.

Questions
  1. DR-Q20 Who controls source, output, cache and backup copies?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Externally resolved custodyContext and scoped custody/lineage map
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Externally resolved custodyContext and scoped custody/lineage mapEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Identify missing custodian; request owner decision. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F21

Do retention, destruction deadlines and holds conflict?

Coverage: deferred disposition engine.

Questions
  1. DR-Q21 Do retention, destruction deadlines and holds conflict?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Separate current constraints and hold evidence from custodians
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Separate current constraints and hold evidence from custodiansEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Host evaluator returns insufficient-context until actual custodian resolves; perform no destruction. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority. inspect() does not perform this check; applicable-review does not establish comparison or custody resolution.
DR-L-dispositionDisposal and migration evidence3 findings

Disposal and migration evidence with explicit local and external responsibilities.

DR-F22

Was disposal requested, executed or verified?

Coverage: outside implementation.

Questions
  1. DR-Q22 Was disposal requested, executed or verified?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Distinct actual request, execution and verification receipts
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Distinct actual request, execution and verification receiptsEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Keep unknown execution unknown; a marker is not destruction. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F23

What evidence may survive disposal?

Coverage: outside implementation.

Questions
  1. DR-Q23 What evidence may survive disposal?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Actual minimal-evidence policy and exact record/copy scope
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Actual minimal-evidence policy and exact record/copy scopeEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Request authorized custody decision without perpetual-retention assumption. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.
DR-F24

Can the register migrate without losing meaning?

Coverage: local roundtrip; cross-version migration deferred.

Questions
  1. DR-Q24 Can the register migrate without losing meaning?governed-context
    Expected answer
    • Complete same-version records, exact pins, source version and explicit loss analysis
    • If unavailable: insufficient-context with named missing evidence; lack of read authority remains denied.
Artifacts
  • Complete same-version records, exact pins, source version and explicit loss analysisEvidence to collect; not a claim that the companion creates, resolves or validates every external artifact.
Actions and unknown handling
  • Roundtrip same version; refuse unsupported version conversion. Proposed operation only; requires the named host/domain authority.

Research and validation

Claude and Grok completed independent studies, three separate prototype audits each, and three frozen full-package audit rounds. Both final R3 audits accepted the bounded reference with limits; concrete R1/R2 findings were corrected. Executed code/native checks are separate Codex evidence. Executed tests and native checks are recorded separately. Research dossier · Review and limits · Tests · Native acceptance · Checksums.

Catalogue identity: vr.profile.enterprise-disclosure-review. EM-XCT-05 remains a broader, partially covered research contour. Parent models are semantic references; no subtype or whole-parent conformance is asserted.