docs(gap): record isolated application service boundary

[seonghobae]

Summary

• record the issue Integrate isolated application-service leases through quarantine-sandbox-runtime #991 authority split between contextual-orchestrator and quarantine-sandbox-runtime
• bind current upstream real-Podman evidence to exact source/job identities without calling the Draft PR shipped truth
• define the release/transport gate and smallest honest consumer ACL slice

Validation

• uv run --locked --group dev pytest tests/test_product_planning_contract.py tests/test_commercial_gap_register.py tests/test_paper_contracts.py -q (11 passed)
• uv run --locked --group dev python -m compileall -q contextual_orchestrator
• git diff --check

No runtime adapter is added before the upstream published-contract gate exists.

---

Summary by CodeRabbit

• 문서
  • Chat, Agent, 정책, 테넌트 인가 등 저장소와 외부 샌드박스 런타임의 책임 범위를 문서화했습니다.
  • 업스트림 계약 대기 상태와 향후 ACL·테스트·API 계획을 기록했습니다.
  • 관련 보안 기준과 실행 검증 결과를 기준선 문서에 추가했습니다.

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Team

Run ID: 60966285-9e93-419e-af5f-cf77d4ee9a81

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

애플리케이션 서비스와 외부 quarantine-sandbox-runtime의 책임 경계를 문서화했습니다. 업스트림 계약 검토 결과, 근거 자료, WAIT_FOR_UPSTREAM_CONTRACT 상태 및 후속 계획을 추가했습니다.

Changes

외부 런타임 경계

Layer / File(s)	Summary
경계 및 계약 상태 docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md	Chat, Agent, 정책, 테넌트 인가, 시크릿, 사용자 가시 라이프사이클을 저장소 범위로 정의했습니다. 컨테이너 라이프사이클, 격리, 리소스 제한, readiness, lease attestation, 정리를 외부 런타임 범위로 정의했습니다. 업스트림 Draft PR 검토 결과와 WAIT_FOR_UPSTREAM_CONTRACT 상태를 기록했습니다.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (간단) | ~5분

Merge Risk: 🟡 Moderate · up to dda21

This change records a future cross-service lease boundary without enabling runtime integration. Merge readiness is moderate because the release criteria do not yet explicitly require authenticated, integrity-protected communication or durable retry and restart cleanup guarantees, which could enable an unsafe future integration or leave orphaned leases unless corrected or explicitly accepted; the citation issue is minor.

Suggested reviewers: claude

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	제목은 격리된 애플리케이션 서비스 경계를 문서화하는 주요 변경 사항을 정확하고 간결하게 설명합니다.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch docs/qsr-application-service-gap-20260901

---

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.}

[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 2026-09-01T05:44:45.500417Z	853f6a7	PR opened

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.

[devin-ai-integration]

Note

This report is out of date. Scroll down for Devin Review's latest report on this PR.

✅ Devin Review: No Issues Found

Devin Review analyzed this PR and found no bugs or issues to report.

[seonghobae]

noema-review failure isn't this PR's

Job log (noema-review, run 33581851116): Noema model-output repair remained invalid; initial failure: Noema LLM response was not valid JSON (Expecting property name enclosed in double quotes: line 1 column 1725 (char 1724)) ... repair failure: Noema LLM response findings must be a list of objects.

This is the review LLM (orchestrator/free) returning malformed/truncated JSON for its verdict, not a defect in this PR's diff (a docs-only change). The same job's own status payload shows heavy provider instability on this call — several nvidia_nim/nvidia_nim_sub candidates rejected with 429, 404, and TimeoutError before one finally served, plausibly explaining a truncated/malformed response from whichever model actually answered.

Re-ran the failed job once (rerun_failed_jobs on run 33581851116) to confirm this is transient rather than a reproducible defect in the review pipeline's JSON-repair path. Will not re-run again beyond this per this session's flake-verification policy — if it fails identically a second time, that's a real review-pipeline robustness gap worth its own investigation (likely in the JSON-repair fallback in .github/actions/noema-review/two_phase.py), not something to keep retrying blind.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[seonghobae]

Rebased this PR onto current main (it was stuck mergeable_state: behind against a stale base sha 8839081...).

CI status before merge: all checks green (noema-review was queued, not failed, at last check).

Merge: git merge origin/main was completely clean — this PR only touches docs/papers/README.md, two new PDFs, and a purely-additive 66-line new dated section in docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md. No conflicts, no conflict markers.

Verification (Python 3.12 venv, pip install --require-hashes -r requirements.lock + pip install --no-deps -e .), reproducing the PR's own stated validation:

• pytest tests/test_product_planning_contract.py tests/test_commercial_gap_register.py tests/test_paper_contracts.py -q — 11 passed (matches the PR description's stated 11 passed)
• python -m compileall -q contextual_orchestrator — clean
• git diff --check — clean

Pushed directly to docs/qsr-application-service-gap-20260901 (no force-push).

---

Generated by Claude Code

[seonghobae]

Autonomous loop note: "Full unit and contract suite" run 33723688939 failed with exactly one test — tests/test_provider_embedding_batch_backend.py::test_unknown_tokenizer_byte_bound_never_becomes_recorded_usage[한글🙂é] - KeyError: 'total_tokens'. This is confirmed unrelated to this PR's own diff (docs-only, no code touched): it is the known async embedding-batch race condition already root-caused and fixed (test-only) in #1044 — see that PR's description for the deterministic repro and fix. Re-ran the failed job (rerun_failed_jobs on run 33723688939); it should pass once the race doesn't lose. No source change needed here; #1044 landing on main removes the flake for good.

---

Generated by Claude Code