J flagged that smoke + parity tests prove the surface compiles, NOT
that an audit response can be produced for a specific person — and the
staffing client won't sign without defensible discrimination-claim
response capability.
New docs/AUDIT_TRAIL_PRD.md captures:
- worked example: John Martinez at Warehouse B requests audit
- subject audit response output format (per-decision row schema)
- surface map: where decisions happen today, where the gaps are
- PII handling rules (tokenization, protected-attribute exclusion,
inferred-attribute risk)
- identity service design intent (separate daemon, audited reads)
- retention + right-to-be-forgotten policy intent
- 9-phase implementation sequence with explicit per-phase exit criteria
- cross-runtime requirement (both Rust + Go must satisfy)
- 7 open questions blocking phase 2+ that need J's call
STATE_OF_PLAY + PRD updated with explicit "production-ready blocker"
section pointing at the new doc. The "substrate is shipped" framing
gets a caveat: substrate ≠ production-ready until audit phase 9 exits.
No code changes. This is the planning artifact J asked for before we
start building.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
