This tree is copied into every project and some of what it carries will not
apply to all of them. Rather than several templates, or scaffold profiles the
website's conformance reader would have to know about before it could tell a
legitimately-absent file from a missing one, entries say so inline.
Two markers, on axes that are deliberately not merged:
applicability -- *(only for a deployed service)*, *(only where money moves)*,
*(only where there are accounts)*. Does this project have to
do this at all?
provenance -- *(precautionary)*. Was the rule earned here, or borrowed?
They are independent, and one word cannot say both. Rate limiting is
universally applicable and has never bitten us. Money flowing backwards applies
only to projects that take money and is the most common defect in the audits it
came from. Applicability tells a reader whether to keep a rule; provenance tells
them whether to argue with it.
The instruction that travels with the marker is ClaudeQAPlan.md's rule about
passes, generalised: if it does not apply, delete it. A pass that never applies
is noise; a pass that is always skipped is a lie -- and so is a checklist row,
and so is a whole document. Deleting is safe because DOC_TRUST_MAP.md is the
trust map: what a project keeps is what it meant to keep.
Applied where it was already true: the authorisation group is conditional on
having accounts, and the header/TLS and test-environment rows on being a
deployed service. A library was being told it lacked a CSP.
closes#1
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
063b715c33