docs: file contract row 10 as ocsf#1756 - #529
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Row 10 of the evidence-contract mapping was the one gap in its register with no issue behind it, recorded as unfiled while 1724, 1728, 1738 and 1739 all carried numbers. It is now ocsf#1756. Re-checked against ocsf-schema main before filing: delegation carries four attributes and all four are correlation identifiers, its description scopes it to exactly that, and dictionary.json has none of currency, amount, budget, quota, consumed, remaining, spend or balance across its 966 entries. authorization is the decision rather than the bounds, policy identifies a reusable rule rather than one grant's instance values, and additional_restriction models guardrails as policy documents with no shape for a magnitude or a counter. The filing widens row 10, which asked only for the accounting half. A running total invites the question of what it runs against, and the terms half was framed nowhere, so the proposal covers both. Row 10 and the gap register cite the issue, and it joins the proposed-fields list under version pinning so it is not read as landed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XyU3PRkgvMxgimkPBC5726
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
Levaj2000
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 10, 2026 21:36
Levaj2000
changed the title
Levaj2000
force-pushed
the
claude/hopeful-fermat-w7waxl
branch
from
September 10, 2026 22:47
8ec3adf to
1290ac3
Compare
Levaj2000
changed the title
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Row 10 of the evidence-contract mapping was the one gap in its register with no issue behind it, recorded as unfiled while 1724, 1728, 1738 and 1739 all carried numbers. It is now ocsf/ocsf-schema#1756.
What changed
What was verified before filing
Re-checked against
ocsf-schemamain:delegationcarries four attributes and all four are correlation identifiers:uid,issuer_uid,parent_uid,created_time. Its description scopes it to exactly that.dictionary.jsonhas none ofcurrency,amount,budget,quota,consumed,remaining,spendorbalanceacross its 966 entries, which is row 10's claim confirmed literally.authorizationis the decision rather than the bounds evaluated against.policyidentifies a reusable rule rather than one grant's instance values.additional_restrictionis the nearest prior art but models guardrails as policy documents, with no shape for a magnitude or a counter.Why the filing widened the row
Row 10 asked only for the accounting half, the running total. A total invites the question of what it runs against, and the terms half was framed nowhere in the register. The issue proposes one
constraintobject ondelegationcarrying the bound at issue time and the consumption at evaluation time, with each attribute marked by which.Related: ocsf/ocsf-schema#1755 on
attestation, from the same review.Docs only, no product impact. No test run applies.
The sink-capability fix that briefly shared this branch now lives in #530.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01XyU3PRkgvMxgimkPBC5726