DUNIN7 · Done In Seven LLC · Miami, Florida
It is written for you first. Every item has a plain-English line saying what it is and why it matters. Technical cross-references sit at the end of each line for the sessions; you can ignore them.
It updates as we go. Whenever an item's status changes, the responsible session saves the next version of this file with the change made and the date on it — old versions stay as history. The highest-numbered version is always the truth.
The full live demonstration works with no excuses — a firm's own document becomes a working engagement, information flows in, the summary view appears, a finished report comes out, a question gets a truthful answer with its sources shown, and an outsider can contribute without seeing anything else.
B-1Fix the memory plumbing. Done
Eight kinds of recorded events were never registered with the replay machinery, so six real engagements couldn't produce their summary view. Built, tested, accepted, merged with a guard, pushed.
CR-2026-158 v0.2 · engine main a317051 · tag registry-completeness-v0_1 · manifest v0.76 Entry 126B-2Put the fix live. Done
Restart done, live engine verified running the fixed code, six engagements healing on next derivation.
B-3Your browser walk-through. Done
You clicked through ten tasks. It cost about two hours rather than fifteen minutes, and it was worth every one: two engine bugs that write the record wrongly (now B-25), two of the audit's findings overturned — the Companion drafts fine and the finished documents are clearly distinguishable — and three findings made worse, including the one B-11 rests on.
Not covered: the passkey commit was never re-run, so the attestation step still hasn't been proven end to end from a browser; two smaller checks were skipped.
inspection-briefs/loomworks-walk-audit-operator-pass-findings-v0_1 · filed d0efb07 · amendments W-17 onwardB-4The completion plan for the missing screens. Ready — front of the queue
A session takes the audit's break list, your walk-through findings, and writes the precise ordered plan for B-5 through B-9.
The walk changed what this plan needs to say. It shouldn't be a list of broken screens to fix. It should carry one rule: a screen states only what it has actually checked. Eight times during your walk a screen told you something it hadn't verified — that a conversation didn't exist when it did, that your foundation was saved when its author was fabricated, that a room was empty when it wasn't. That is one problem with eight faces, and fixing it face by face will miss the ninth.
Completion scoping note · walk-audit break list + findings v0.1 §4 + manifest v0.76 §5B-5The Manifestation screen. Waiting
Today the "organize what we know" room is an empty placeholder — you saw it say "Nothing organized into a picture yet" on an engagement that had produced one that same morning. This builds the real screen, with a marker that tells you when the view has gone stale.
B-6The Shaping screen. Waiting
The room where knowledge is arranged for a particular reader — also a placeholder. You saw it claim no shapes existed on an engagement holding two finished ones.
B-7The Rendering flow, end to end. Waiting
Better than we thought: the documents are there, clearly named, and open cleanly. Three things missing — no way to download, no sign of which one is current when an older and a newer sit side by side, and the finished document carries stray formatting marks that shouldn't reach a client.
B-8Teach the Companion the last three rooms. Waiting
Also better than we thought — asked to draft a Board brief it simply did it, working correctly from the record. What it can't do is find a finished document by the name printed on the screen, or act on a note by its number.
B-9The "show me where this came from" walk. Waiting — depends on B-25
Click any statement in a finished report and walk backward to the person who said it. This cannot ship before B-25. Two of the walk's findings are records with false authorship in them; a provenance walk over false provenance demonstrates a lie convincingly.
B-10Outside contributors, safely. Ready — can run now
Lets a founder or a customer reference contribute to a deal file through a one-time link — labelled as theirs, held for approval, seeing nothing else. Fully specified and approved.
CR-2026-157, filed, confirmed not executed · at Step 0: its OVA naming is historical — GRANTHA holds the authorization seatB-11Make answers truthful. Ready — rescoped
What we thought: the system answers with an old, already-corrected value.
What your walk actually found, asking the same question three times in one conversation: correct answer, then "I fabricated that answer in my previous response" — a false confession about a true statement drawn from a note sitting on the screen — then correct again with its source cited. The answer isn't wrong. It's unstable. That's worse: a consistently wrong answer can be found and fixed, but one that occasionally disowns itself can't be trusted even when it's right.
Second thing found: the system can read a note by its number perfectly but can't act on one — "retract 3" and "withdraw finding 3" both came back saying no such record exists, about a note it quoted correctly two turns later.
The lead written into this item this morning was wrong and is withdrawn: the recall path it pointed at answered correctly, twice.
Findings v0.1 §3.2 and §3.3 · one read still owed: what correction-matching was actually built in JulyB-12Make the record searchable. Waiting on B-11
Today a question looks at the fifty most recent notes, whatever they are — no real search exists. The biggest single piece of engineering on this list. May merge with B-11.
B-13Ask your engagement. Waiting on B-12
A partner asks a plain question and gets a truthful answer with every source shown. When this lands, our rule against demonstrating question-answering lifts.
B-14Read spreadsheets and slide decks. Ready — independent
Today the system can't take in the cap table, the financial model, or the pitch deck. One thing the walk added: the file-chooser greys out the types it won't accept, with no explanation — so when this lands, the accepted-types list has to widen with it, or the new capability will be invisible at the only place a user meets it.
B-15Catch the record up on June–July. Done
Six weeks and roughly forty change requests absorbed into the current-status record; seven new entries, two owed corrections applied, six open items recorded.
Manifest v0.76 · record 7539f05B-25The record writes that aren't true. Ready — most serious item here
What your walk found. When you edited the foundation of the new engagement, the system recorded that edit as the work of a contributor who does not exist — it checked you were allowed to make the change, then threw away who you are and stamped a randomly generated identity in the record.
Separately, the greeting from the create-engagement conversation was written into a different engagement's permanent history — the one you happened to have open last — because the code can't tell "deliberately blank" from "not supplied" and quietly filled in the gap.
A third instance was already known: work the Companion triggers is recorded as a contributor's.
Three places where the system can't work out the true answer and writes a believable one instead of stopping. On a product whose promise is a record that tells you truthfully who did what, this is the worst failure available, and none of it is visible from any screen. One change request, not three fixes. Two searches are needed first to find out whether it's three sites or twenty.
Findings v0.1 §3.1 · engagements.py:347 · converse.py:690 · compositions.py:73B-26Correct the record about door 3. Ready — small
Our own current-status record says the document-upload path was verified live in June with an edit surviving to commit. No evidence of that verification exists anywhere in the record — and the kind of check it describes could not have found the authorship bug in B-25, because it would have compared the words and never looked at who wrote them. The claim needs a correction marker alongside it, preserved rather than deleted. Small, but it's our record making a claim it can't support.
Findings v0.1 §3.1 W-19 · manifest Entry 118, carried forward unexamined into v0.76B-16Update the foundation document. Ready to draft Commit needs you
Three corrections queued for the seed, including replacing the outdated authorization wording. Drafting approved; you read and approve before it commits.
Seed v0.13, three ridersB-17The portfolio filter. Ready
The dashboard can group engagements into workspaces but won't filter by them. One parameter. Gives the fund-level "compare my deals" view its plumbing.
B-18File the four protocol requirements. Ready
Four precise requirements for the identity and authorization specs, approved — a session files them with the right owners so they're waiting when those specs next move.
B-19Keep this list alive. In progress
Sessions maintain it; you read it.
B-20The marketing website. Ready
All five answers confirmed. The answers are in the marketing alignment note; the session writing the copy reads them there.
B-21Reply to Aldous. Needs you: act
Draft chosen — the shorter, warmer one. Edit if you like, then send.
B-22Package Stele for the outside world. Waiting — background track
The identity component cleaned up so a stranger can run it, plus its papers in the shape a security evaluation would want.
B-23The security story, told right. Ready
All four answers confirmed. Incidents in the news as backdrop, a proper assurance page, certification before category, "a rogue agent is an unsigned agent" as the flagship of our standards work.
B-24Investor-visible FORAY. Waiting on B-10
Investor-hosted first, not target-hosted. A session scopes the adapter once B-10 lands; the pilot conversation leads the build.
Restricted-visibility slices 2–3 (to be reworked in grant language when their day comes) · target-hosted visibility · the protocol wire-format changes (queued to the next version boundary by design) · OVA's remaining standalone role (one conversation, whenever) · cross-fund questions · the stray zip file in the record.
None open. Decisions 1–8 are all answered.
The queue is still clear of questions. What is left of your involvement is two acts — sending the Aldous reply (B-21) and reading the seed draft before it commits (B-16).