Loomworks confidentiality-posture standing note v0.3 → v0.4 — amendment instructions — v0.1

Version. 0.1 Date. 2026-08-06 Author. Claude.ai (drafting session). Operator: Marvin Percival. Applies to. standing-notes/loomworks-standing-note-confidentiality-posture-v0_3.md, committed at record c2b5f0b. Produces. loomworks-standing-note-confidentiality-posture-v0_4.md. v0.3 is not edited 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.

1. What this corrects

v0.3 removed the superseded access-control-list model correctly, and described GRANTHA's mechanism while doing so. Two passages, both in the drafting session's own voice, both live assertions rather than quotations of a stale source:

Line 7, the v0.3 amendment note: grant as the sole primitive, no access-control list, no group object, holder-set never readable — with OVA beneath it for blind verification.

Line 67, the preserved-prior-position paragraph: GRANTHA has no access-control list and no group object at all.

And a third, added by v0.3's Splice 3 to Resolution 3: and that OVA verifies against blindly beneath GRANTHA.

These are accurate. They do not belong here. A standing note that describes another protocol's internals goes stale whenever those internals move — which is precisely how this note came to carry the OVA access-control-list model for two months. Naming the seat is durable; naming the mechanism is not.

> The correction has now been made twice and overshot once. v0.3 replaced a stale mechanism with a current one; v0.4 removes the mechanism altogether. The lesson is in the second step, not the first: the note went stale because it described a mechanism, and replacing one mechanism description with another leaves it exposed to the same failure.

2. Splice 1 — Version block

Replace:

**Version.** 0.3
**Date.** 2026-08-06

With:

**Version.** 0.4
**Date.** 2026-08-06

And insert, immediately after the existing Amendment note (v0.3). paragraph:

> Amendment note (v0.4). Removes three descriptions of how GRANTHA and OVA work, added by v0.3 while correcting the seat they occupy. Operator direction, 2026-08-06: while basic Loomworks functionality is being tested, these substrates are named by placement, not function. v0.3's correction stands — the access-control-list model is still gone and restriction is still by grant — and the description of the replacing mechanism goes with it. A standing note that names another protocol's internals goes stale whenever those internals move, which is how this note carried the superseded model for two months. The v0.3 body is otherwise preserved.

3. Splice 2 — the v0.3 amendment note (line 7)

Replace:

> Architecture Decision J1 (June 2026) placed GRANTHA there — grant as the sole primitive, no access-control list, no group object, holder-set never readable — with OVA beneath it for blind verification.

With:

> Architecture Decision J1 (June 2026) placed GRANTHA there, with OVA beneath it — restriction by grant rather than by list.

[EXECUTING SESSION: this edits the v0.3 amendment note in the copy being made as v0.4. That is not a rewriting of history — the v0.3 file itself is untouched and stands as the record of what v0.3 said. Confirm v0.3 is unmodified at close.]

4. Splice 3 — Resolution 2's preserved-prior-position paragraph (line 67)

Replace:

> The substitution is not a rename — GRANTHA has no access-control list and no group object at all, where the prior model's restricting act was the establishing of a list.

With:

> The substitution is not a rename — the prior model's restricting act was the establishing of a list, and the current model has no list to establish. How a grant works is GRANTHA's specification to govern, not this note's.

5. Splice 4 — Resolution 3

Replace:

> the UUID must remain the stable spine FORAY and GRANTHA bind against, and that OVA verifies against blindly beneath GRANTHA

With:

> the UUID must remain the stable spine FORAY and GRANTHA bind against

6. Splice 5 — Footer

Replace:

Loomworks — Confidentiality posture as a declared engagement property (standing note) — v0.3 — 2026-08-06

With:

Loomworks — Confidentiality posture as a declared engagement property (standing note) — v0.4 — 2026-08-06

Verification checklist after applying

1. Version block and footer both read v0.4.
2. loomworks-standing-note-confidentiality-posture-v0_3.md is unmodified. So is v0.2.
3. No live sentence describes how GRANTHA or OVA works. Sweep for sole primitive, group object, holder-set, holder set, blind verification, blindly. Every occurrence must be inside the v0.4 amendment note, which quotes them in order to say they were removed. Any other occurrence is a miss.
4. v0.3's correction survives: no live sentence names OVA as the authorization seat or an access-control list as the restricting mechanism.
5. Resolution 2's orthogonality claim is unchanged, and the category-error warning still stands.
6. Nothing in §2, §2a, §3a, §4, §5, §6 or §7 is touched — except §3a is checked and left alone, since v0.3 already corrected it to no grant enforcement of any kind, which is placement.
7. Count the removed descriptions yourself. This document claims three. If you find a fourth, that is a miss.

DUNIN7 — Done In Seven LLC — Miami, Florida Loomworks confidentiality-posture standing note v0.3 → v0.4 — amendment instructions — v0.1 — 2026-08-06 It went stale because it described a mechanism. Replacing one mechanism description with another leaves it exposed to the same failure.