Loomworks — GRANTHA correction note, second pass — v0.2

Version. 0.2 Date. 2026-08-06 Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival. Supersedes. investigations/loomworks-grantha-correction-note-second-pass-v0_1, committed at record 866b4ba. v0.1 is not edited and stands as a sibling. Changes from v0.1. §1 described how GRANTHA and OVA work — the grant as sole primitive, the absence of a group object, the unreadability of the holder-set, what OVA answers, what a list can be that a grant cannot. Operator direction, 2026-08-06: while basic Loomworks functionality is being tested, GRANTHA and OVA are named by their placement, not their function. §1 now names the seat and the restricting act and no more. §3 is also corrected: it counted four documents as three, and gave the venture-diligence pair one entry when they carry different sentences. Filed beside. scoping-notes/loomworks-c5-scoping-note-domain-reference-model-v0_1; verticals/venture-diligence/venture-diligence-candidate-seed-v0_2; verticals/venture-diligence/loomworks-vertical-venture-capital-diligence-v0_2; investigations/loomworks-foray-operational-visibility-investigation-v0_1. Companion to. investigations/loomworks-reach-enforcement-grantha-correction-note-v0_1 (2026-07-29) — the first pass, which this one completes. Status. Correction note. Nothing it names is edited — the record's discipline is that a superseded position stands where it was written and the correction sits alongside.

1. What was superseded

Architecture Decision J1 (June 2026) placed GRANTHA in the authorization seat, with OVA beneath it. Restriction is by grant, not by list.

This is not a rename. The prior model's restricting act was establishing a list; the current model has no list to establish. How a grant works is GRANTHA's own specification to govern — this note records which seat each substrate occupies and no more.

Seed v0.12 predated J1 and committed to the superseded model in five places. Seed v0.13 (2026-08-06) corrected all five, and seed v0.14 trims that correction back to placement for the same reason this version does.

2. What the first pass covered, and what it missed

The 2026-07-29 correction note named four documents — the reach-enforcement scoping handoff and scoping note, the OVA Slice 1 change-request drafting handoff, and CR-2026-157 — and recorded them as correctable at their next version bump. That was right, and those four remain properly marked.

It swept the arc it was written inside. It did not sweep the record.

Four documents carry the same staleness and were never named — three of them written the same day, in parallel work. They were not in the arc; nobody looked outside it.

> The durable finding, and it generalises past this instance. A correction note written from inside an arc naturally covers that arc. What it cannot see is what was written in parallel from the same stale premise — and a superseded architectural commitment propagates by parallel adoption at least as much as by sequence. A correction note should sweep the record, not the arc. (Recorded as a methodology candidate.)

3. The four documents, and what each says

scoping-notes/loomworks-c5-scoping-note-domain-reference-model-v0_1 (2026-06-05), line 40. States, verbatim: Restricted by exception — an ACL established through OVA, after which OVA governs reach. A live commitment underpinning the C5 domain-scoping work. The domain layer is not built, so nothing rests on this yet — but C5 scoping is the next thing that would consume it, and it would consume the wrong model.

verticals/venture-diligence/venture-diligence-candidate-seed-v0_2 (2026-07-28), line 77. States, verbatim: Verified state (engine inspection, 2026-07-28): reach restriction is a committed seed posture — open by default, restricted by access-control list through OVA.

> **This is the most serious of the four, and the reason is the phrase verified state. The claim was checked against the seed, and seed v0.12 said exactly that — so the verification was performed correctly and returned a true answer about a document that was itself stale. A reader cannot distinguish that from a claim checked against a current source, and verified is precisely what a careful reader looks for.**

verticals/venture-diligence/loomworks-vertical-venture-capital-diligence-v0_2 (2026-07-28), line 112. States, verbatim: The seed's Memory section carries two independent access axes — reach, open by default and OVA-restricted when an access-control list is established…

> A different sentence from its sibling's, and a different kind of claim. It carries no verification stamp; it reports what the seed's Memory section carries — and the seed no longer carries it. The same shape as the confidentiality-posture standing note's Resolution 2: a document accurately reporting another document's commitment, where that document has since abandoned it.

Both venture-diligence documents were written the same day as the arc the first pass swept, which is how §2's gap arose in practice rather than in principle.

investigations/loomworks-foray-operational-visibility-investigation-v0_1 (2026-07-28). Describes the target-hosted Model 2 design as an access-control list naming the fund. That design is unbuilt and parked, so nothing rests on it — but the design as described cannot be built, because the mechanism it names does not exist. Whoever picks it up would find the model missing rather than find it wrong.

4. What was checked and found correct

Recorded so the sweep's negative results are visible, not only its positive ones.

Already correct, naming GRANTHA in the seat: the stack architecture and dependencies document; the reach-enforcement correction note itself; the Stele agentic-identity investigation; and the current-status manifests v0.76 through v0.78, whose Entries 119 and 120 carry the supersession explicitly.

Correctly stale and already marked — named by the first pass, standing as history: the reach-enforcement scoping handoff and scoping note, the OVA Slice 1 drafting handoff, CR-2026-157, and the Cognisee positioning note.

Not a problem, by genre. candidate-seeds/ova/ova-candidate-seed-v0_1 uses ACL to describe OVA's own internal egg-condition primitive — a different and still-accurate claim, not a Loomworks-level authorization commitment. And discovery/loomworks-discovery-note-domain-reference-model-v0_1 is a Discovery note, whose genre is deliberate trajectory preservation; its ACL language is expected history.

Handled separately, and now twice. The confidentiality-posture standing note carried the superseded model and received a version bump rather than a correction beside it — a standing note is read as current authority, so a correction filed elsewhere does not reach its reader. That bump produced v0.3, which then carried GRANTHA's mechanism in its own drafting voice and needs v0.4 for the same reason this document needs v0.2.

5. What this note does not do

• It edits nothing. Each named document stands as written; this note sits alongside.
• It does not schedule the corrections. Each is correctable at its next version bump, as the first pass established.
• It does not re-open the C5 domain-reference model, beyond noting that its access premise is superseded and would need correcting before that scoping is consumed.
• It does not revisit the venture-diligence documents' substance. Only the one claim each makes about the access mechanism — and they are different claims, not one claim in two places.
• It does not sweep for other superseded architectural commitments. This sweep was for one decision. §2's finding suggests others may be carried the same way, and establishing that is its own errand.

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — GRANTHA correction note, second pass — v0.2 — 2026-08-06 The first pass swept its own arc. What was written in parallel from the same premise carried it too, and nobody looked.