11 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
11 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
# Active slice
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Slice: DFG-9 controlled application decision
|
|
Goal: Decide from DFG-7 and DFG-8 evidence whether a developer-only canonical changeset application command is justified.
|
|
In scope: Review read-only and proposal workflow evidence; define the exact human authorization boundary; evaluate repeated integration work; require clean base hashes and repeat validation; and either specify one narrow application command or record manual integration as permanent policy.
|
|
Out of scope: OpenClaw canonical application; automatic commit, push, deployment, or publication; arbitrary commands; accounts; HTTP transport; a web UI; and implementation before the evidence review supports it.
|
|
Done when: The project records either a proven narrow developer-only application contract or a reasoned decision to keep proposals manually integrated.
|
|
Owners: DocForge owns proposal evidence and generic safety constraints. Each project owns canonical source semantics and integration policy. A developer retains authorization, review, build, Git, and publication ownership.
|
|
Proof: DFG-8 bound OpenClaw to content-only updates for existing AssetForge chapters. A real changeset validated, diffed, previewed, and was manually integrated through the Worldforge builder. Create, move, delete, metadata, relationship, root-manifest, and cross-family changes were denied. Conflict, stale-source, raw-HTML escaping, canonical preservation, and post-integration base-conflict proofs passed.
|
|
```
|