Version. 0.1
Date. 2026-08-06
Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival.
Applies to. candidate-seeds/loomworks/loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_13.md.
Produces. loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_14.md and its HTML companion. v0.13 is not edited — it moves to archive/ and stands as a sibling.
Occasion. Operator direction, 2026-08-06: while basic Loomworks functionality is being tested, GRANTHA and OVA are named by their placement, not their function.
Status. Drafted for the Operator's reading. Committing a seed version is an Operator act.
v0.13 is not wrong about GRANTHA. Every mechanism sentence it added is an accurate description.
It is wrong to be in the seed at all.
The seed's own stated discipline is to commit postures and defer mechanisms. It says so three times, in its own words: the two-tier sign-up posture is committed and the mechanism is specification-level and deferred; the trusted-core admission gate is committed and how a contributor earns a place is governed at the scope level, not fixed by the environment; the cross-scope composition is committed and the composition rules are specification-level, not seed-level.
v0.13 broke that pattern in the passage it was correcting. It committed the seed to: the grant being GRANTHA's sole primitive; there being no group object; the holder-set never being readable; what authorization is a question of. These are GRANTHA's properties, described in Loomworks's foundation document.
> And this is precisely how the ACL commitment got there. Seed v0.10 wrote OVA's mechanism into the seed — an access-control list, established as an act, governing from that point. When the mechanism changed, the seed was wrong, and stayed wrong for two months because a foundation document is not re-read often. A seed that names only the seat cannot go stale when the occupant's internals change.
What v0.14 keeps: that restriction is by grant rather than by list — the minimum needed not to re-commit to the model J1 replaced — and that GRANTHA holds the seat with OVA beneath it. What it removes: everything about how a grant works.
Replace the version and status block with:
**Version.** 0.14
**Date.** 2026-08-06
**Status.** Fourteenth version. Trims v0.13's GRANTHA passages back to placement. v0.13 correctly replaced the superseded access-control-list model but described GRANTHA's mechanism in doing so — the grant as sole primitive, the absence of a group object, the unreadability of the holder-set. That is specification-level detail about another protocol, and the seed's own discipline is to commit postures and defer mechanisms, as it does for the sign-up lift, the trusted-core admission gate, and the cross-scope composition rules. v0.14 names the seat and the restricting act and leaves everything else to GRANTHA's own specification. Operator direction, 2026-08-06: while basic Loomworks functionality is being tested, GRANTHA and OVA are named by placement, not function. Carries forward everything else v0.13 settled.
Replace the three-paragraph block v0.13 introduced — from A scope's Memory is reachable in one of two access modes through …not merely un-restricted because the control layer is absent —
With:
> A scope's Memory is reachable in one of two access modes. By default a scope is open — reachable by any engagement, any Operator: this is the "all" mode, and it is the default precisely because a knowledge commons compounds when its knowledge is open. A scope becomes restricted when reach to it is placed under grant; from that point GRANTHA governs who may reach it. Restriction is therefore a deliberate, recorded act — placing the scope under grant — not a default. Open is the default; closed is the exception. > > Restriction is by grant, not by list. The seed names the seat and the act and no more: how a grant is issued, held, presented or checked is GRANTHA's own specification to govern, as the seed defers the sign-up limit's mechanism, the trusted-core admission mechanism, and the cross-scope composition rules. (Prior position, preserved: v0.12 and earlier committed to restriction by an access-control list established through OVA. Architecture Decision J1 (June 2026) replaced that seat with GRANTHA. Seed v0.13 absorbed the replacement and described its mechanism; v0.14 keeps the replacement and removes the description.) > > Enforcement is not yet built, and this seed states that as posture rather than fact. While GRANTHA does not yet enforce, every scope is effectively open. The access mode is declared and the enforcement seam is anticipated in the architecture — the code carries a stub where the consultation will sit. It is not in place in the sense of being wired and holding. When enforcement lands, scopes placed under grant become restricted and the rest remain open. This must hold both ways: the system supports restricted scopes and open scopes, and the two are not the same — an open scope is open by design, not merely un-restricted because the control layer is absent.
Replace:
> it is what GRANTHA authorizes against, and what OVA verifies against blindly beneath it.
With:
> it is what GRANTHA authorizes against.
[EXECUTING SESSION: the OVA clause is removed here rather than corrected. What OVA does beneath GRANTHA is OVA's function; that it sits beneath GRANTHA is placement and is stated once, in the Constraints section, which is where the seed names its substrate dependencies.]
Replace the whole constraint with:
> Leverages FORAY, GRANTHA and OVA. FORAY for tamper-evident anchoring of transitions. GRANTHA is the authorization substrate; OVA sits beneath GRANTHA (provisional patent filed March 2026). What each does internally is its own specification's to govern; the seed names only where each sits. The access model for Memory scopes has two modes and supports both: open ("all" — the default, reachable by any engagement) and restricted (placed under grant, with GRANTHA governing reach). A scope is open until it is placed under grant; placing it under grant is the deliberate, recorded act that restricts it. Until GRANTHA enforces, scope access runs through the seam-marked stub the architecture anticipates and every scope is effectively open — but the two modes are distinct commitments, and open is open by design, not a placeholder for an absent control layer. > > The seed's prior position, preserved: v0.12 and earlier named OVA as the candidate access-control substrate and committed to restriction by an access-control list. Decision J1 (June 2026) replaced that seat.
In the note v0.13 added, replace:
> GRANTHA holds the authorization seat; the grant is its sole primitive; there is no access-control list and no group object, and the holder-set is never readable. OVA remains, beneath GRANTHA, as the blind-verification layer.
With:
> GRANTHA holds the authorization seat, with OVA beneath it. Restriction is by grant rather than by list; how a grant works is GRANTHA's specification to govern, not the seed's.
And append to the same note:
> A second correction, one version later. v0.13 described GRANTHA's mechanism while correcting the seat — the sole primitive, the absent group object, the unreadable holder-set. v0.14 removes that, on the Operator's direction that while basic functionality is being tested these substrates are named by placement and not function. The removal is not a retreat from the correction: the seat is still GRANTHA's and restriction is still by grant. What goes is the seed describing another protocol's internals — which is how the superseded ACL commitment entered the seed in the first place, and would be how the next one entered.
Retitle ## Drafter's notes for v0.13 to ## Drafter's notes for v0.14, insert this above, and preserve the v0.13 content beneath as ### Drafter's notes preserved from v0.13:
> v0.14 makes one change, on Operator direction of 2026-08-06: while basic Loomworks functionality is being tested, GRANTHA and OVA are named by their placement, not their function. > > What was removed. v0.13's descriptions of GRANTHA's mechanism — the grant as sole primitive, the absence of a group object, the unreadability of the holder-set, what authorization is a question of — and the Identity section's clause about what OVA verifies. Four passages. > > What was kept. The seat: GRANTHA authorizes, OVA sits beneath it. The act: a scope is restricted by being placed under grant. The correction: restriction is by grant, not by list — the minimum needed not to re-commit to the model Decision J1 replaced. And the honest posture: enforcement is not built. > > Why. The seed's own discipline is to commit postures and defer mechanisms, stated in its own words for the sign-up lift, the trusted-core admission gate, and the cross-scope composition rules. v0.13 broke that pattern in the passage it was fixing. And a seed that names another protocol's internals goes stale whenever those internals move — which is exactly what happened with the OVA access-control-list commitment, and would have happened again. > > What v0.14 does not do. It does not weaken the correction v0.13 made; the ACL model is still gone. It does not defer building anything that was scheduled. It does not touch the held-gate extension or the seam-as-posture restatement, both of which v0.13 got right and which are unaffected.
Replace with:
Loomworks candidate seed — v0.14 — 2026-08-06
Produce Markdown and the HTML companion. Move v0.13 and its HTML to archive/.
Do not commit until the Operator has read v0.14 and approved it. Stage, report, and stop.
loomworks-candidate-seed-v0_13.md is in archive/ and unmodified.sole primitive, group object, holder-set, holder set. Every occurrence must be inside a preserved-prior-position note or the v0.13 drafter's notes.DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks candidate seed v0.13 → v0.14 — amendment instructions — v0.1 — 2026-08-06 A seed that names only the seat cannot go stale when the occupant's internals change.