# 06 — Gaps, open questions and honest tensions

---

## 1. Build-fresh items

| # | Item | Why |
|---|---|---|
| **G1** | **The backups doctrine** | The only NFR on the corpus's own list with no material — in the estate with irreversible publishing and a keys-vault design. Write it or publish the stub |
| **G2** | **"How a brief becomes work here"** | The estate's PM system exists in ~4,000 documents and is described nowhere. The most original PM page available, and onboarding for every agent session |
| **G3** | **The resilience doctrine** | Every mechanism traces to a named incident; the pattern ("design for the failure you had") is unwritten |
| **G4** | **The reality-doc freshness check** | The best documentation rule in the estate, enforced manually, already failed twice. A CI check like the licence audit |
| **G5** | **The scorecard generator** | `00__` §4's table, regenerated per release, cells linked to evidence |
| **G6** | **The memory-thesis page for `sgit.ai`** | The network's purpose statement, currently living in a chat message |

## 2. Open questions

| # | Question | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|
| **Q1** | **Is a hub site worth its drift risk?** Fourteen spokes, all moving | The mitigations are the link-never-restate rule and generated numbers. If those hold, yes; if not, the map alone (one page) is the fallback |
| **Q2** | **Where does "consistency" live?** On the eight-NFR list, but split across `coding.` (conventions), this site (sources of truth), and `skills.` (drift) | Recommend: this site owns the *requirement*, the map points at the three homes |
| **Q3** | **Should IFD be published at all?** It is the estate's competitive methodology — and the memory thesis says publish | The open-source position (*"the moat is a rate, not a wall"*) answers yes; say so explicitly rather than assuming |
| **Q4** | **Do the budget disciplines survive contact with real figures?** Pre-approve-the-ladder is research-grounded and untested here | Publish as discipline with the research citations; mark the estate's own use as pending |
| **Q5** | **Is "backups" actually the gap, or is the vault model the answer?** Vault versioning + escrow may *be* the backup doctrine, unnamed | An hour of thinking, then either the doctrine page or the honest stub |

## 3. Honest tensions

1. **A site about NFRs, from an estate whose own scorecard is mixed.** One green column would be dishonest; the mixed table is the credibility. Every lapse cited is already published in a sibling pack — this site adds no new exposure, only assembly.
2. **The hub teaches what the spokes measured.** Its value is curation, and curation is the first thing to rot. The generate-or-date rule is load-bearing here more than anywhere.
3. **The memory thesis makes every site's flaws teachable.** If these sites are agent memory, then a stale page is a false memory — which raises the stakes of the staleness failures the estate has already had four of. The thesis and the freshness discipline arrive together or not at all.
4. **"For agents to learn how we work" cuts both ways.** An agent that learns the no-mocks rule also learns the 67.4%-CI-coverage reality. Teaching the practice honestly means teaching the gap between rule and practice — which is, in the end, what an NFR site is *for*.

## 4. Loose ends worth an hour each

- Decide Q5 (backups vs vault-model) before writing G1.
- Extract the eight-NFR sentence's history — did the list ever appear earlier than the villagers brief?
- Check `library/guides/development/` for guides not yet surfaced in any pack (the `code-formating` and `dependencies` folders were only skimmed).
- Confirm the IFD guides' current version against actual practice — they are `v1.2.x` in a repo at `v0.33.x`, two version schemes side by side.
- Count the day-indexes and debriefs for the G2 page — the PM system's scale is part of its argument.

---

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).