Version. 0.2
Date. 2026-08-06
Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival.
Supersedes. investigations/loomworks-grantha-four-documents-amendment-v0_1. v0.1 stands as a sibling and its documents 1 and 4 were applied from it unchanged.
Changes from v0.1. Two of four could not proceed as written, and both failures have the same cause: the drafting session wrote the amendment from the correction note's quoted fragments instead of reading the documents. Document 2's replacement stops mid-sentence, leaving a corrected clause followed immediately by an uncorrected one. Document 3's target is two versions stale, and the version anyone actually reads was already clean — so the correction note that named it is itself wrong, and that is recorded at §4 below.
scoping-notes/loomworks-c5-scoping-note-domain-reference-model v0.2 and investigations/loomworks-foray-operational-visibility-investigation v0.2 were filed from v0.1's instructions. Both anchors matched and both replacements were self-contained. Nothing here revisits them.
verticals/venture-diligence/venture-diligence-candidate-seed-v0_2 → v0.3.
**v0.1 quoted the sentence to "through OVA" and replaced only that far.** The sentence continues — with OVA not yet enforcing — and under the corrected model OVA does not enforce at all. GRANTHA does, when it is built; OVA sits beneath it. Leaving that clause would produce a corrected mechanism followed immediately by an uncorrected one in the same sentence, which v0.1's own instruction called worse than neither.
**[EXECUTING SESSION: read the full sentence to its terminating punctuation before replacing. The report showed it trailing into "the enforcement is a commissioned scoping arc…" and truncated there. Establish where it actually ends, quote it in your report, and replace the whole sentence.]**
Replace the whole sentence with:
> Verified state (engine inspection, 2026-07-28; access mechanism re-verified 2026-08-06): reach restriction is a committed seed posture — open by default, restricted by placing the scope under grant, with GRANTHA governing reach — and enforcement is not yet built; it remains a commissioned scoping arc.
**[EXECUTING SESSION: if the sentence's real ending carries material beyond "a commissioned scoping arc" — a dependency, a cross-reference, a further clause — preserve it verbatim after the replacement rather than dropping it. Report what you preserved.]**
Add to the version block:
> Amendment note (v0.3). Corrects the access mechanism. The v0.2 claim was verified correctly and against a stale source — seed v0.12 did commit to an access-control list through OVA, and Architecture Decision J1 had already replaced that seat two months earlier without the seed absorbing it. Seed v0.13 and v0.14 (2026-08-06) corrected it. The verification was sound; the document it verified against was not, which is why the re-verification date is now stated alongside the original. Nothing else changes — the vertical's substance, its diligence posture and its isolation claim are unaffected.
verticals/venture-diligence/loomworks-vertical-venture-capital-diligence.
v0.1 targeted v0.2. The current version is v0.4, and v0.3 and v0.4 are substantive later work — a two-vertical restructuring and a FORAY-attestation correction.
And v0.4 is already clean. Its §8.2 was rewritten when the reach-enforcement arc resolved, for reasons unrelated to GRANTHA, and carries no access-control-list or OVA-mechanism claim at all.
So correcting v0.2 would produce a version nobody reads while the version everyone reads is already right. No action.
> And the stale text in v0.2 is not a defect. v0.2 is a superseded sibling that stands as the record of what was believed on 2026-07-28. A superseded version carrying a superseded claim is the record working, not failing. What was wrong was naming it as a live problem.
investigations/loomworks-grantha-correction-note-second-pass-v0_2 names document 3 as carrying a live stale claim. It does not. The note reported a true fact about v0_2 and treated it as a fact about the document, without establishing that v0_2 was the current version. It is not; two later versions exist and the current one is clean.
This correction is filed here rather than in a further version of that note, and the reason is worth stating: the chain of documents correcting documents has itself become a cost today. This amendment sits beside the correction note, cites it, and is reachable from it. A reader who finds the note finds this.
> The durable finding, and it is the same one in a new place. The sweep searched for stale text and reported the files containing it. It did not check whether each file was the current version of its document. A superseded version containing a superseded claim is expected; the question is always whether the current version carries it, and that requires a version check per hit rather than a text match.
ACL, access-control list, OVA. Every remaining occurrence must be inside its own amendment note.ACL, access-control list, OVA-restricted. Report the result. If it is not clean, this document is wrong and that is a halt.DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks — GRANTHA supersession, the four inherited documents — amendment instructions — v0.2 — 2026-08-06 The sweep found stale text and reported the files holding it. It never asked whether those files were current.