627a5f0c3d
Ran cross-lineage scrum on the discovery doc with the new model fleet
(opus + kimi-k2.6 + gemini-3-flash via Go gateway :4110, custom
"senior security architect" prompt). 3/3 reviewers responded with
substantive 800-1200 word reviews. Saved at /tmp/audit_scrum/.
5 convergent findings (≥2 reviewers) added as §10/C1-C5:
C1. §1F matrix-indexer "good for audit defensibility" claim is over-
claimed — walked back in TL;DR. Trace bodies unverified; treat as
SUSPECTED PII sink until §8.1 sampling completes.
C2. §1E (Langfuse) is the most dangerous leak — fix FIRST, ahead of
view-routing. Boundary-crossing leak (GDPR Art. 44 / CPRA sale /
SOC2 disposal). All 3 reviewers converge on this priority.
C3. Discrimination defense requires the FULL CANDIDATE POOL, not just
fills. EEOC UGESP (1978): need adverse-impact stats on everyone
who could have been picked. Phase 1 worked example missed this.
C4. BIPA / biometric exposure understated in findings (in PRD §10.5
but not translated to actionables). $1k-$5k per-violation regime.
C5. candidate_id must be promoted to top-level field in all JSONL
sinks. Grepping natural-language strings is not defensible audit
strategy. 3/3 reviewers converge.
11 single-reviewer high-value catches added as §10 single-reviewer
section: opus on LLM provider egress (8th PII path), Art. 22 right-
to-explanation, special-category data, DPIA/ROPA/DPA inventory; kimi
on sequential ID enumeration risk, Langfuse retention config, CCPA
de-identified-in-place vs crypto-shred, Bun common-mode failure,
cryptographic audit-trail integrity (Merkle/FRE 901), HIPAA BAA,
revised SELECT * effort estimate; gemini on data residency, "culture
fit" reasoning proxies, comparator-pool snapshot.
§9 reordered: sample first → defense-layer second → Langfuse
boundary third (was view-routing first per original draft;
boundary-crossing leak is higher priority per scrum).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>