Lewati ke isi

RC1 Independent Re-Audit Verdict

Exact identity and outcome

Golden is running the audited application trees: FE app 1ffc7160… / tree eb10f68e…f31a, served via docs-only descendant bd37c517…; BE 3d7a213… / tree 69bd9993…b2e9; DB UUID 2bf5fd27-9390-11f1-9617-28e8d4be73f5. E1.2 validator passes. T0 29/29, W01 64/64, W02 33/33, W05 16/16, T1, route, package, and focused unit gates pass.

The previous DEC-014, false-Core, evidence, denominator, and attendance-test findings are independently closed. No current Core S0/S1 behavioral regression was reproduced.

RC1F-006 remains open: the candidate is unpushed and has not been promoted as an exact immutable pair to demo. Demo and all five production tenants still serve FE 3b7e… / BE 334db…. Therefore this audit cannot truthfully approve an RC1 release candidate or authorize deployment.

Adversarial answers

  1. Exact served software audited? Yes for Golden; no equivalence claimed for demo/production.
  2. Immutable validator pass? Yes.
  3. Historical W01 cleanup failures superseded? Yes, explicitly.
  4. W01 64/64? Yes.
  5. W02 33/33? Yes, zero skip.
  6. W05 16/16? Yes, zero skip, per-lesson only.
  7. Teacher A sees Teacher B timetable? No.
  8. Teacher A marks unrelated student? No; invalid_student, state unchanged.
  9. Parent A sees Child B? No.
  10. Student A sees Student B attendance? No.
  11. Invalid academic term leaves partial state? No.
  12. Foreign partner creates in-tenant parent relation? No; no parent row/link change.
  13. Direct RPC bypass? Not on the bounded tested models/actions.
  14. Concurrent attendance duplicates truth? No; one sheet/line remains.
  15. Visible Core menu leads to uncertified workflow? No among the 15 prior blockers.
  16. /attendance/daily outside W05? Yes; fail-closed.
  17. News authoring looks certified? No; fail-closed.
  18. Calendar CRUD looks certified? No; authoring fail-closed, feed only remains.
  19. Complaints/messaging shown as finished Core? No.
  20. Report-card/analytics masquerade as Core? No.
  21. Installed optional package exposes business function while unentitled? Not in the tested HR/finance and navigation boundaries.
  22. Every Core mutation owned or excluded? Yes in the current map.
  23. Sensitive reads bound to owner/scope? Yes for bounded reads; excluded reads are not certified.
  24. Tenant schema upgrades separated from app certification? Yes.
  25. Can a tenant be promoted without attendance upgrade proof? The contract forbids it; promotion tooling is not exercised because RC1F-006 remains open.
  26. News schema handled where authoring used? Authoring is disabled; future use requires -u scola_news and W16 certification.
  27. All current Core S0/S1 closed? Behavioral findings yes; release/deployment S1 RC1F-006 no.
  28. Exactly one canonical current evidence set? Yes, indexed; fresh auditor reruns are supplementary reproductions.
  29. Historical versus authoritative runs understandable? Yes through the lineage ledger.
  30. Can “Core V1 RC1 approved” be explained truthfully now? The bounded scope can be explained, but approval itself is premature until RC1F-006 closes.

Final verdict

RC1-B — CORE FUNCTIONALLY READY — NAMED RC1 CLOSURE GAPS REMAIN

Named gap: RC1F-006. Push/freeze the exact commits, build immutable artifacts, promote the same FE+BE pair to demo, pass demo UAT/identity/schema/role/negative-scope gates, then request a separate production-promotion decision. Do not promote this Golden worktree candidate directly.