Version. 0.1
Date. 2026-08-05
Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival.
Executed by. Claude Code on DUNIN7-M4, one session.
Target. /Users/dunin7/loomworks-engine at main bd60cec; /Users/dunin7/loomworks at main 1245f1c. Both read-only. [EXECUTING SESSION: confirm both; report if either has moved.]
Charter. standing-notes/dunin7-standing-authorization-charter-v0_1. R-5 inspection run.
Build-list item. B-8 — change request D.
Status. Read-only. Establishes ground for a scoping note or a change request, depending on what §3 finds — see below. Produces no fix and no recommendation.
What B-8 is. The four rooms exist. The Companion knows one of them. Teaching it the other three is the last main-line item that does not wait on the Operator.
Why the first question is not "what can it do." The build list has carried one Step 0 item for this since it was written: does a vaguely-worded request skip the authority check entirely? And the Shaping room's build established something that makes that question sharper than it was: confirming a Shape enqueues production of renders. So if the Companion can confirm on a loose instruction, a vague sentence produces artifacts — and the seed holds that automatic state transitions on artifacts the Operator has authority over are a category error.
If §3 finds that gap is real, this brief's output is a scoping note and a defect, not a feature plan.
Grounding. inspection-briefs/loomworks-b6-step-0-findings-v0_1 (the confirm-enqueues-renders finding); inspection-briefs/loomworks-b11-step-0-findings-v0_1 (the conversation path end to end, including intent classification).
Both repositories read-only. No fixes, no branches, no commits, no dependency changes.
No model call. [EXECUTING SESSION: if a question needs one, report what it would cost and halt.] The conversation path was read statically once already and most of this should be readable too.
Database. playground_dev and playground_test are never touched. A throwaway is permitted if something needs one.
No dev server, no perimeter call.
A failure is a result.
State only what you have read or run, plus the disciplines at standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-executable-document-versions-v0_8:
unread or unrun rather than closing a gap with a plausible reading.And one specific to this subject. An instruction in a prompt telling the Companion to seek approval is not an authority check. It is a request the model may or may not honour. Establish what the code enforces, separately from what the prompt asks for, and report them as two different things — because they are.
3.1 Every operation the Companion can currently perform, in any room, that changes state rather than reading it. Name each, with the route or handler that performs it.
3.2 For each: what stands between the request and the change. A structural check in code, an approval step the Operator must take, an intent classification that must match, a prompt instruction, or nothing.
3.3 The vague-request path specifically. When a request does not classify cleanly into a known intent, what happens? Does it fall through to a general conversational handler, and can that handler reach any state-changing operation? The build list's standing question is whether a loosely-worded request can skip a check a precisely-worded one would hit.
3.4 Confirmation and its consequences. The Shaping room's confirm enqueues render production. Establish whether the Companion can reach that confirm, and if so what stands in front of it. [EXECUTING SESSION: this is the sharpest case because the consequence is not local — a confirmation here makes work appear elsewhere. If the Companion can reach it on a vague instruction, stop and report that before continuing with the rest of the brief.]
3.5 The approval mechanism, if one exists. The seed holds that the system surfaces and signals and the Operator approves. Establish whether an approval step exists in code, what it covers, and what it does not.
4.1 The rooms it can act in. Which of Memory, Manifestation, Shaping and Rendering the conversation path can read from and write to. Report per room and per operation.
4.2 How a request becomes an operation. The classification step, the intents it recognises, and what happens to a request matching none of them.
4.3 What the model is told about the rooms. Read the actual prompt material — persona, context blocks, intent templates. Does the Companion know the other three rooms exist? A Companion that cannot name a room cannot be asked to work in it, and that is a different gap from one that knows and cannot act.
4.4 The server-composed intents. Several intents bypass the model and compose replies directly. Establish which, because they are the pattern any faithful new capability would follow — and B-11 established the difference matters.
Not a design. An enumeration of what a person would plausibly want to do in each room by asking, and whether the engine can already do it.
For Manifestation, Shaping and Rendering separately:
5.1 What operations the engine exposes — the routes that exist, from the rooms' own builds.
5.2 Which of those a conversational request could plausibly target, and which are inherently surface actions. Some are not conversational: a control that shows what it will produce before it is pressed does not translate to a sentence.
5.3 What would need building versus what would need wiring. The rooms' builds found repeatedly that the engine already served what the surface needed. Establish whether the same holds here.
6.1 Membership. Every read is fenced at the endpoint, once, with the query functions carrying no predicate. Establish that the conversation path sits behind that gate — and whether every operation it can reach does too.
6.2 The room-state contract. Three rooms now hold that a failed read says so and never that the record is empty. A conversational answer about a room is a surface on that room's data. Establish whether the conversation path can report a room's contents, and if so whether it inherits the contract or bypasses it.
6.3 Sources. B-11 made an answer's citations facts for one intent. Establish whether an answer about the other rooms would carry sources, or whether that channel is coupled to the one intent — the read that established it said the coupling was to a specific data key.
playground_dev or playground_test.One findings document, Markdown primary.
Path. inspection-briefs/loomworks-b8-step-0-findings-v0_1.md. Copy to ~/Downloads.
Structure: environment (both SHAs, both tree states, databases, whether any model call was made) · question one first and answered plainly — can a vaguely-worded request reach a state-changing operation, and specifically can it reach the confirm that enqueues renders · questions two to four in order · and everywhere: what the code enforces stated separately from what the prompt asks for · corrections preserved · unread and unrun.
Filing. Charter R-1: commit and push on clean pre-flight. Append the outcome to current-status/dunin7-status-brief.
B-8 Step 0 inspection. Read-only.
Brief: loomworks-record/inspection-briefs/loomworks-b8-step-0-inspection-brief-v0_1.md
Confirm it exists, and that it is the highest version present — numeric sort.
Read the brief in full. Charter dunin7-standing-authorization-charter-v0_1 governs.
Two repositories, both READ-ONLY — the brief's header names them and their SHAs.
Confirm both; report if either has moved.
No fixes, no branches, no commits, no dependency changes, no dev server, no
perimeter call. No model call — if a question needs one, report the cost and halt.
playground_dev and playground_test are live databases and neither is touched.
Answer Section 3 FIRST, and one part of it can stop the rest: if the Companion
can reach the Shaping confirmation on a vaguely-worded request, that confirmation
enqueues production of renders elsewhere. Report that before continuing.
Throughout: an instruction in a prompt asking the Companion to seek approval is
NOT an authority check. Report what the code enforces separately from what the
prompt asks for. They are different things and this brief needs both.
File findings per section 8. Append the outcome to the status brief.
DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — B-8 Step 0 inspection brief — v0.1 — 2026-08-05 What it can do, and what actually stops it — which are two questions, not one.