Decide privacy-safe opt-in operational evidence sharing with MI #17
Labels
No labels
bug
duplicate
enhancement
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
Creatidy/model-intelligence#17
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Parent: #11. Owner: Model Intelligence for any acceptance of shared evidence; Kernel/Router own local outcome export, analysis and consent enforcement at origin. G07 optional opt-in, G05, G10. Source: shared architecture v1.0 (2026-10-04), supplied sections 1–5, 7–10, 12–18; MI brief §4 feedback/privacy and §5 G07. Reference/hash availability in #11.
Problem and Current Evidence
At develop
fb7299810fdc4612d4e0559465faef571662c6ef, #9/PR #10 handles public synthetic ecosystem evidence only; no outcome-sharing service/contract is delivered. Kernel tests/APPROVE are scoped operational observations, not unbiased model-quality ground truth. Metadata can identify private work even when prompts are removed. The known problem needs an explicit bounded decision, not a compulsory central feedback API.Research Question and Result
Under what user benefit, minimization and consent conditions, if any, should MI accept operational evidence exported by Kernel/Router? Deduplicate actual outcome/feedback work first. Deliver a threat/privacy/measurement assessment and approve/reject/conditional-return decision packet. No receive endpoint, automatic training or production collection is authorized.
Acceptance
Dependencies and Priority
Read Kernel/Router G07 counterparts, #14 capability/calibration and #13 evidence/publication boundaries; link known counterparts or clearly state not found. No prerequisite for core public-evidence product; priority P2 decision work prevents scope/privacy drift and lost known requirements. MI must not classify private tasks, own raw workspace/account telemetry or replace local evaluation.
Actual sharing/service/inference/user data requires separate opt-in and owner/service authorization; this issue's registration grants none. Research uses synthetic evidence and does not migrate existing private data.
Initial deduplication found outcome/correlation/feedback planning under Kernel Creatidy/creatidy-kernel#46 and Router BioMedical-IT/scarcity-router#173, but not an existing MI opt-in admission decision. Their local export/analysis must not be duplicated into MI. Coordinate #14 semantic/calibration boundary and #13 evidence contract. This is an independent privacy/benefit decision, not a gate that forces optional sharing into core producer #15 or installed acceptance #19.
Final local-outcome consumer counterpart: Router BioMedical-IT/scarcity-router#177 (local outcome export consumption, explicit task/Attempt/call correlation, dedup/incomplete-history and cautious calibration). Kernel export owner remains Creatidy/creatidy-kernel#46, dedicated export child not identified. This does NOT authorize uploading outcomes to MI, transferring private telemetry or automatic quality learning. MI #17 decides separately whether any voluntary shared minimal evidence is justified.
Review correction: actual Kernel outcome producer Creatidy/creatidy-kernel#58 provides versioned private whole-journey/cost/verdict export, local by default, no automatic upload, explicit destination/scope/redaction/consent, causal limits and Router consumer conformance. Consumer BioMedical-IT/scarcity-router#177 remains local analysis; MI #17 is separately proved optional intake/privacy. This supersedes earlier Kernel export child-not-found notes and does not make sharing mandatory.
Bounded evidence-backed decision research is prepared in PR #33, HEAD
41600d01f9ecacfb40f5835236fe707f08f566c1, basea1d985e3635da30416aea898dccebd0017bfe49a. Actual current Kernel/Router local artifacts inspected at9dfa20931a46931d1e97d1f0efddcf2692afb7a7/1dae1948f372e0f1739896655bb7db97d6b08460: reuse existing local evidence, distinguish private identity/content/corrections and conditional acceptance from request completion/partial economics; no complete-task or privacy guarantee inferred.Recommendation: reject direct MI intake of existing private outcome exports/audits today. Conditional return requires concrete incremental public benefit unavailable through safer public reproduction/origin-local analysis, necessary nonprivate provenance, actual producer/consumer and lifecycle/rights receipts, voluntary destination/purpose/scope/time-specific consent and negative conformance. Owner choice required by AC5 remains pending; loop authority cannot supply that privacy/product decision.
Packet compares RFC6973 July2013 privacy mechanisms and arXiv2107.07002v1 benchmark-choice motivation with explicit citation/verification limits, and ten owned synthetic policy examples. Five executable owned tests demonstrate only current MI public-producer independence, aggregate confounding, a known-dictionary hash link and document structure, not implemented consent/redaction/intake enforcement. Sanitized offline make check PASS113, Ruff/format35, basedpyright0, locked sync/whitespace.
No private records, receiving endpoint, new format, collector, external sharing, code/data copying, calibration transfer, private task classifier, live inference, service/publishing/deployment or product GO. Fresh independent exact-HEAD whole-PR review follows. Issue stays open/PR unmerged pending the explicit owner decision and acceptance/currentness gates; no implementation issue was registered or selected for collection.
Loop terminal: STOP_AND_ASK / owner decision required, not a technical blocker.
Fresh independent whole-PR ordinal1/10, task
ses_eef932408ffex3088Ut1mj34q7, reviewed HEAD41600d01f9ecacfb40f5835236fe707f08f566c1against basea1d985e3635da30416aea898dccebd0017bfe49a: COMMENT, findings empty. Research AC1–AC4 assessed without defects; source claims independently verified and sanitized make check PASS113/all repository gates. Review limitation is solely AC5's absent explicit owner decision. Synthetic examples are not implemented privacy/consent/redaction or operational producer-consumer proof.Final fresh canonical MCP/body/all4comments and Git refs/status confirm no owner acceptance decision; PR33 open/unmerged, issue17 open, clean exact issue-17-sharing-decision checkout at reviewed HEAD; develop unchanged at reviewed base. No unchanged review retry, fabricated approval, merge/closure or selection of another issue follows this genuine decision.
Decision packet offers materially distinct outcomes: reject direct operational intake today with concrete reconsideration evidence (recommended), or conditional return for an explicitly named future purpose subject to measured incremental public benefit, necessary nonprivate provenance, source/user rights, actual producer-consumer/lifecycle conformance and voluntary destination/purpose/scope/time-specific consent. No choice itself authorizes collection without separately selected implementation/service/data approvals. Loop/review/Git authorship cannot supply the owner decision.
This invocation completed #14 via merged PR31/32; #15 was left untouched/open and nonterminally ineligible after executable proof of its missing separately accepted production native-limit/mapping artifact. Private data, receiving API/format, source acquisition, automatic calibration, live inference, deployment, release, installed acceptance and product GO remain ungranted.
Explicit owner decision received from Adrian in the current session on 2026-10-06T14:23:48Z, transcribed here under his instruction: REJECT current operational intake. This supersedes the pending-decision disposition in comments15388/15392; it does not erase delivery/review history.
Do not implement a Model Intelligence receiver, private operational-data collection path, production sharing format, automatic calibration, or centralized ingestion of existing Kernel/Router private outcome exports/audits.
Governing rationale:
Preserve PR33's reconsideration path. A future return requires a specific named public-evidence/product problem; demonstrated improvement over public sources/reproduction and origin-local analysis; evidence that proposed shared fields are necessary; explicit producer/consumer contract and lifecycle; voluntary scoped consent where private records are involved; source/user rights and negative conformance; separate owner approval before implementation. This is not a permanent prohibition on future opt-in sharing, product GO, installed acceptance or permission for private sharing.
Owner explicitly authorizes continuation of the existing #17 delivery/review counter, packet/status update, validation, fresh independent exact-HEAD review, and conditional merge of the SAME PR33/issue closure under existing loop gates, followed by full canonical SELECT. Review17 counter remains1/10 (initial COMMENT); no restart/reset. #15/#16/#18/#19 retain their own independently verified gates.
Completed #17's bounded decision delivery through merged PR #33, preserving the existing history/counter.
Owner decision: REJECT current operational intake, supplied 2026-10-06T14:23:48Z and recorded in comment15400. Packet revision2 records all rationale points and seven future reconsideration criteria. This is not permanent prohibition, private-sharing permission, product GO or a gate waiver for #15/#16/#18/#19. No receiver, private collection, production sharing format, automatic calibration or centralized private-export ingestion was implemented.
Exact reviewed base
a1d985e3635da30416aea898dccebd0017bfe49a; approved HEADd54ef5d64c3d57e04c0c91111672620cd2ecaa3a. Fresh independent whole-PR ordinal2/10 taskses_eee57eac3ffeSuYUNU4OpxuL6Q: APPROVE/findings empty; all five acceptance criteria and cited source evidence independently verified. Initial ordinal1 COMMENT remains in history, not reset.Actual supported normal merge
98b270e387571decceb9be7d177d122656de9fa3, exact parents[reviewed base, approved HEAD], tree56b19d3d75f8033c48db25de69baeac8f1ea6ac5identical to approved tree; approved ancestry verified. Same normal checkout returned clean to canonical develop by fast-forward. Integrated sanitized offline lockedmake checkPASS115, Ruff lint/format35, basedpyright0 and staged/unstaged whitespace.Substantive files: OPERATIONAL_SHARING_REVIEW.md, README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, ROADMAP.md and tests/test_operational_sharing_review.py. Research examples remain limited to document structure, owned arithmetic/hash counterexamples and current public-producer independence, not implemented privacy/consent/redaction/whole-cost enforcement. No production src/dependency/lock, foreign mutation, private records, inference, deployment/release, installed consumer acceptance or new collection issue.
After verified closure the loop returns to a full canonical queue, applying each remaining issue's own actual prerequisites. Future return to optional sharing needs the specific named problem, demonstrated incremental public benefit/necessary fields, producer-consumer/lifecycle, voluntary scoped consent where private, source/user rights/negative conformance and separate owner approval before implementation.
Loop continuation reached normal terminal QUEUE_EMPTY: no eligible issue, not a tooling blocker or a new owner-decision stop.
Full canonical refresh after verified #17 closure also selected/evaluated stale-open #9: actual owner-merged PR10/approved objects and unchanged R2 code/packaging were verified, current focused proof35/build/isolated installed-wheel smoke passed, completion15417 posted and #9 freshly confirmed closed. No reimplementation, new PR, remerge or historical review reset.
Final actual open issue pages7/empty contain #3/#5/#7/#15/#16/#18/#19. Exact invalid labels exclude3/5/7 first, preserving STOP_REVISE history. Remaining actual bodies, all17 comments and empty native dependency lists refreshed. All remaining P2 issues are currently gated:
Those issues remain open and untouched. No artificial schema, source capture, incidental metadata patch, new issue registration, private receiving path or cross-repository implementation was used to continue the loop. Future work must satisfy its own actual gates; the public-source role and preserved optional-sharing reconsideration path remain unchanged.
Current clean canonical develop
98b270e387571decceb9be7d177d122656de9fa3: integrated sanitized make check115/all required gates passed. #17 review counter2/10 and all earlier histories preserved. No product GO, permanent sharing prohibition, private-sharing permission, release/deploy/inference or installed acceptance was granted.