open/llm-ingestion-okf
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 1 Activity

docs(okf-v0.2): U7 resolved — the 'not:' family is an example, not a field

Browse source 
Zero occurrences in the v0.2 SPEC.md, zero in the v0.1 SPEC.md at the parent of
the migration commit, no reference in upstream's reference_agent source, and one
file in the whole bundle set. An undocumented hand-authored key, legal under
§14's unknown-keys tolerance — a demonstration of the open namespace rather than
a field to support.

The same sweep settles '# Cited by': body prose in two policy files, absent from
the spec, and independently DERIVED by the visualizer (viz.html:56) from sources.
Both fit the upstream pattern already visible in credibility scores and trust
tiers — OKF stores signals, consumers derive views.

Answering this needed the v0.1 spec text, upstream's source, and a whole-tree
grep at once, which is what the local pinned clone made possible. That is U8's
lesson applied rather than restated.
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-07-27 16:32:40 +02:00
commit 0a7a77d5a8
1 changed files with 26 additions and 4 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

30
docs/plan/okf-v0.2-alignment.md
View file

@ -185,12 +185,34 @@ a hard requirement on D1's reader, not a nicety. Consumers **MUST NOT** reject o
missing optional frontmatter, unknown `type` values, unknown additional keys, missing optional frontmatter, unknown `type` values, unknown additional keys,
broken cross-links, missing `index.md`. `status` absent defaults to `stable`. broken cross-links, missing `index.md`. `status` absent defaults to `stable`.
### U7 — One unresolved observation ### U7 — The undocumented keys in the reference bundle. RESOLVED 2026-07-27
`metrics/gross-margin.md` carries a `not:` family (`- term / why / instead`) that `metrics/gross-margin.md` carries a `not:` family (`- term / why / instead`) that
we could not locate in the spec sections read. It is either a v0.1 field we never we could not locate in the spec sections read. The question recorded here was
enumerated or an undocumented one. **Not resolved**, recorded so it is not whether it is a v0.1 field we never enumerated or an undocumented one.
mistaken for something already checked. It touches nothing in the tag.
**Measured, and it is neither of the two things that would have mattered.** Zero
occurrences in the v0.2 `SPEC.md`; zero in the **v0.1** `SPEC.md` (451 lines, read
at the parent of the v0.2 migration commit `780fe9d`); no reference anywhere in
upstream's own `reference_agent` source; and exactly **one** file in the whole
bundle set uses it. So it is an undocumented, hand-authored key in a single
example — legal under §14's "unknown additional keys MUST NOT be rejected", and a
demonstration of the open namespace rather than a field. Nothing to support.
The same sweep settles a second one. `# Cited by` appears as a body section in two
`policies/` files and nowhere in the spec — but `viewer/templates/viz.html:56`
renders a "Cited by" heading, so the visualizer **derives** that view by inverting
`sources` across the bundle. The two files hand-author what a consumer computes.
Both fit one upstream pattern worth keeping in view, because it is the same
principle stated for credibility scores and trust tiers: **OKF stores signals and
consumers derive views.** A reverse-citation index is a view. Nothing here is
something a producer emits, so none of it reaches our doors.
Method note, since it is the point of U8: answering this needed the v0.1 spec
text, upstream's source, and a grep over the whole tree at once. All three became
available when the pinned tree was cloned locally (operator, 2026-07-27) instead
of fetched file by file.
### U8 — Per-claim attribution is a BODY convention, and we read only frontmatter ### U8 — Per-claim attribution is a BODY convention, and we read only frontmatter