{ "discoveryPackVersion": "E26-DISCOVERY-PACK-0.1", "schemaVersion": "E26-FIELD-0.1", "status": "CONTROLLED_DISCOVERY_GUIDANCE_CANDIDATE", "authorityEffect": "NONE", "packs": [ { "id": "DP-CORE", "title": "Core capability discovery", "appliesTo": "Every DEEP session", "purpose": "Collect the minimum evidence needed to later derive Observations, Patterns, Domestic Capability Landscape entries, Gaps, Reuse/Outsource Hypotheses, and Requirement Discovery Backlog items without turning field notes into requirements.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-CORE-01", "title": "Capability boundary", "icon": "!", "question": "What exact capability is being demonstrated or described, and what is explicitly outside its scope?", "whyItMatters": "Prevents product marketing language from being mistaken for a controlled capability boundary.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Capability Observation", "Domestic Capability Landscape", "Discovery Backlog" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-02", "title": "Operating model and responsibility", "icon": "?", "question": "Who operates each component, who holds operational authority, and which responsibilities remain with the customer?", "whyItMatters": "Separates managed service, integrator, component, and customer-retained authority models.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Pattern Candidate", "Reuse/Outsource Hypothesis", "Dependency Analysis" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-03", "title": "API and integration", "icon": "!", "question": "Which APIs, protocols, events, webhooks, import/export interfaces, and authentication methods are actually available?", "whyItMatters": "Determines whether a capability can be reused or integrated without transferring System-of-Record or workflow authority.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENTATION", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENT", "SCREENSHOT", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Integration Pattern", "Domestic Capability Landscape", "Gap Register" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-04", "title": "Independent export and portability", "icon": "!", "question": "Can records, configuration, evidence, logs, attachments, and metadata be exported independently, in what formats, and with what omissions?", "whyItMatters": "Provides evidence for exit constraints, portability, lock-in, and future System-of-Record independence.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "API_DOCUMENTATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "SCREENSHOT", "API_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Exit Constraint", "Reuse/Outsource Hypothesis", "Domestic Gap" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-05", "title": "Data and evidence ownership", "icon": "!", "question": "Who owns the data, evidence, logs, telemetry, configuration, keys, and generated outputs during service and after termination?", "whyItMatters": "Protects SUPEXIM evidence ownership, audit lineage, authorization policy, and exit capability.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Dependency Risk", "Exit Constraint", "Core Relevance Review" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-06", "title": "Identity and authorization", "icon": "!", "question": "How are identities, roles, service accounts, credentials, privileged actions, and policy changes represented and audited?", "whyItMatters": "Supports later analysis of identity governance and authorization without accepting an external authority model by default.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SCREENSHOT", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Security Pattern", "Core Relevance Review", "Gap Register" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-07", "title": "Audit, logging, and evidence lineage", "icon": "!", "question": "What raw logs, audit events, evidence lineage, change history, timestamps, and export mechanisms are available, and who controls them?", "whyItMatters": "Determines whether future SUPEXIM audit lineage can remain independently controlled.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Audit Pattern", "Evidence Ownership", "Domestic Gap" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-08", "title": "Backup, recovery, and independent restoration", "icon": "!", "question": "What is backed up, who controls backup/keys, what are RPO/RTO claims, and can a complete recovery be performed outside the provider?", "whyItMatters": "Separates ordinary backup claims from demonstrated recoverability and provider-independent exit capability.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "SCREENSHOT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Infrastructure Pattern", "Dependency Risk", "Exit Constraint" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-09", "title": "Dependencies and termination", "icon": "!", "question": "Which proprietary components, licenses, external services, data formats, contracts, or operator dependencies remain after termination?", "whyItMatters": "Creates evidence for lock-in and service-exit analysis without turning the visit into vendor selection.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Dependency Risk", "Exit Constraint", "Reuse/Outsource Hypothesis" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-10", "title": "Scale and operating limits", "icon": "?", "question": "What measured limits, supported volumes, latency/throughput boundaries, retention limits, tenant/company limits, or failure modes can be evidenced?", "whyItMatters": "Prevents unqualified scale claims and supports future requirement discovery.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "PUBLIC_REFERENCE" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "SCREENSHOT", "BROCHURE" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Capability Observation", "Discovery Backlog", "Validation Task" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-11", "title": "Standards and external interoperability", "icon": "?", "question": "Which documented standards, protocols, certification schemes, signature/trust frameworks, or external interoperability requirements are supported?", "whyItMatters": "Creates domestic evidence that can later be compared with international benchmarks without making a field-side gap judgment.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "PUBLIC_REFERENCE", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "BROCHURE", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "International Gap Register", "Validation Task", "Pattern Candidate" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-12", "title": "Commercial model awareness", "icon": "?", "question": "What charging unit, minimum commitment, setup cost, variable driver, support tier, and termination cost structure is documented?", "whyItMatters": "Supports economic-model awareness only; price is not a selection score.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "PUBLIC_REFERENCE", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "BROCHURE" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Economic Model Awareness", "Reuse/Outsource Hypothesis" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-13", "title": "Data model and identifiers", "icon": "!", "question": "How are primary business objects, identifiers, relationships, versions, attachments, and metadata represented and exported?", "whyItMatters": "Provides evidence for future canonical-data-model discovery without accepting the source data model as SUPEXIM architecture.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "API_DOCUMENTATION", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Data Pattern", "Domestic Capability Landscape", "Requirement Discovery Backlog" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-14", "title": "Workflow and state authority", "icon": "!", "question": "How are workflow states, tasks, approvals, exceptions, retries, reversals, and audit transitions represented, and which system is authoritative for each transition?", "whyItMatters": "Separates reusable workflow capability from future SUPEXIM workflow authority and core business rules.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Workflow Pattern", "Core Relevance Review", "Requirement Discovery Backlog" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-15", "title": "Multi-company and partner boundaries", "icon": "!", "question": "How are companies, branches, partners, tenants, delegated users, shared records, and cross-organization permissions isolated or related?", "whyItMatters": "Creates evidence for future multi-company and partner operating models while preserving identity and authorization governance as SUPEXIM core concerns.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Multi-company Pattern", "Partner-core Review", "Gap Register" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-16", "title": "Automation and AI control boundary", "icon": "!", "question": "Where do rules, automation, or AI make suggestions or take actions, what evidence is retained, how can a human override or abstain, and what remains deterministic and auditable?", "whyItMatters": "Supports future use of AI as a reasoning/automation capability without allowing a source system to become the final authority or evidence store by default.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Automation Pattern", "AI Capability Observation", "Control-gap Discovery" ] }, { "id": "DP-CORE-17", "title": "Deployment, residency, and localization", "icon": "?", "question": "What deployment models, regions, data-residency options, language/localization capabilities, and customer-controlled hosting or key options are supported?", "whyItMatters": "Creates operational deployment evidence for future market and infrastructure design without choosing a deployment architecture in the field.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Infrastructure Pattern", "Market-readiness Observation", "Dependency Risk" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-SCREEN", "title": "Screening evidence check", "appliesTo": "Every SCREENING session", "purpose": "Rapidly determine whether a source can produce evidence worth a DEEP session or follow-up validation without ranking the source.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-SCREEN-01", "title": "Concrete capability", "icon": "?", "question": "Can the source identify one concrete capability relevant to a controlled capability domain?", "whyItMatters": "Avoids consuming time on generic marketing narratives.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Capability Observation", "Session Follow-up Decision" ] }, { "id": "DP-SCREEN-02", "title": "Evidence availability", "icon": "!", "question": "Is a technical representative, practical demonstration, export/API/architecture evidence, or formal documentation available now or through a concrete follow-up?", "whyItMatters": "Implements the stop rule when only unsupported marketing claims are available.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "API_DOCUMENTATION", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "API_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Evidence Limitation", "Validation Task" ] }, { "id": "DP-SCREEN-03", "title": "Portability and interface signal", "icon": "?", "question": "Can the source show or document at least one API, export, architecture boundary, or independently usable component relevant to the capability?", "whyItMatters": "Quickly identifies whether deeper evidence collection can produce integration, portability, or reuse information.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENTATION", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Screening Evidence", "Evidence Limitation", "Follow-up Validation" ] }, { "id": "DP-SCREEN-04", "title": "Stop-rule check", "icon": "!", "question": "Is the session still producing attributable technical evidence, or has it become marketing-only, unverifiable, contradictory without clarification, or outside the discovery mission?", "whyItMatters": "Protects field time and prevents unsupported claims from consuming deep-session capacity.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "If the stop rule is met, record the limitation/exception factually, close the session as incomplete where appropriate, and do not memory-fill missing evidence later.", "downstreamUse": [ "Session Closeout", "Evidence Limitation", "Validation Task" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-MOHAYMEN", "title": "Mohaymen — workflow/integration evidence", "appliesTo": "SourceName = Mohaymen", "purpose": "Test workflow/case representation, independent export, and whether an external System of Record can remain authoritative.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-MOH-01", "title": "Case/workflow representation", "icon": "!", "question": "How are cases, workflow steps, tasks, state transitions, evidence, and external identifiers represented and exposed?", "whyItMatters": "Supports pattern discovery while protecting future SUPEXIM workflow authority.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "API_DOCUMENTATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "API_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Workflow Pattern", "Integration Pattern" ] }, { "id": "DP-MOH-02", "title": "External authority and export", "icon": "!", "question": "Can the system operate while an external System of Record remains authoritative, and can case records be exported independently?", "whyItMatters": "Directly tests reuse without surrendering System-of-Record authority.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "API_DOCUMENTATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SCREENSHOT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "API_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Reuse Hypothesis", "Exit Constraint" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-HOVITA", "title": "Hovita — digital trust evidence", "appliesTo": "SourceName = Hovita", "purpose": "Understand trust-chain design, separable APIs, standards, and cross-border technical/legal recognition boundaries.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-HOV-01", "title": "Trust chain and validation", "icon": "!", "question": "What trust chain, validation steps, certificate/status checks, timestamping, or verification artifacts are technically available?", "whyItMatters": "Separates technical trust functions from legal recognition claims.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Digital Trust Pattern", "International Gap" ] }, { "id": "DP-HOV-02", "title": "Separable interface and recognition boundary", "icon": "!", "question": "Which trust functions are callable as separable APIs/components, and which cross-border recognition statements are technical versus legal claims?", "whyItMatters": "Prevents a legal-recognition claim from being recorded as demonstrated technical capability.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENTATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "API_DOCUMENT", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Reuse Hypothesis", "Validation Task", "Gap Register" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-ARVAN", "title": "ArvanCloud — infrastructure/recovery evidence", "appliesTo": "SourceName = ArvanCloud", "purpose": "Test data/key control, backup/recovery, independent restoration, and non-exportable dependencies.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-ARV-01", "title": "Data, keys, backup, and recovery", "icon": "!", "question": "Who controls data, encryption keys, backups, recovery operations, and deletion, and what evidence exists for each boundary?", "whyItMatters": "Provides concrete infrastructure governance evidence rather than generic cloud claims.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Infrastructure Pattern", "Dependency Risk" ] }, { "id": "DP-ARV-02", "title": "Independent recovery and export", "icon": "!", "question": "Can a complete recovery be performed outside the provider, and what configuration, metadata, keys, images, logs, or services cannot be exported?", "whyItMatters": "Makes exit constraints and independent recovery directly observable.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Exit Constraint", "Reuse Hypothesis", "Gap Register" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-APK", "title": "APK — security operations evidence", "appliesTo": "SourceName = APK", "purpose": "Test raw log/evidence ownership, incident-response authority, and whether SOC/MDR operations can be outsourced while governance remains retained.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-APK-01", "title": "Raw security evidence ownership", "icon": "!", "question": "Who owns raw logs, alerts, cases, incident evidence, timelines, and exported telemetry, and what survives service termination?", "whyItMatters": "Supports retained evidence ownership and independent auditability.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "LIVE_DEMONSTRATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "SCREENSHOT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Security Operations Pattern", "Exit Constraint" ] }, { "id": "DP-APK-02", "title": "SOC/MDR responsibility boundary", "icon": "!", "question": "Which detection/response actions are provider-operated and which policies, approvals, escalation decisions, and incident authority remain customer-controlled?", "whyItMatters": "Tests outsourcing of operations without outsourcing governance authority.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Reuse/Outsource Hypothesis", "Dependency Risk" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-PAYAM", "title": "Payam Pardaz — security architecture evidence", "appliesTo": "SourceName = Payam Pardaz", "purpose": "Test component separability/interoperability, ownership of policy/config/logs/telemetry, and termination dependencies.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-PAY-01", "title": "Component separability", "icon": "!", "question": "Which security components can be deployed or integrated independently, through what APIs/protocols, and what shared proprietary dependencies remain?", "whyItMatters": "Supports component reuse analysis without adopting an entire external security architecture.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT", "API_DOCUMENTATION", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM", "API_DOCUMENT", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Security Architecture Pattern", "Reuse Hypothesis" ] }, { "id": "DP-PAY-02", "title": "Policy/config/evidence ownership after termination", "icon": "!", "question": "What policies, configuration, logs, telemetry, cases, and evidence remain exportable and usable after termination?", "whyItMatters": "Directly exposes exit and governance dependencies.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Exit Constraint", "Dependency Risk" ] } ] }, { "id": "DP-GREENWEB", "title": "GreenWeb — integrated service ecosystem evidence", "appliesTo": "SourceName = GreenWeb", "purpose": "Clarify legal/SLA boundaries, component independence, termination effects, and ecosystem lock-in within a strict 35-minute session limit.", "questions": [ { "id": "DP-GRW-01", "title": "Legal and SLA boundaries", "icon": "!", "question": "Which legal entity and SLA is responsible for each service component, support path, data location, incident, and termination obligation?", "whyItMatters": "Prevents an integrated service bundle from obscuring accountability boundaries.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "OFFICIAL_TECHNICAL_DOCUMENT", "TECHNICAL_EXPLANATION" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Service Operating Pattern", "Dependency Risk" ] }, { "id": "DP-GRW-02", "title": "Component independence and lock-in", "icon": "!", "question": "Can components be terminated or replaced independently, and what data, configuration, integrations, or operational dependencies prevent separation?", "whyItMatters": "Produces direct evidence for reuse boundaries and exit constraints.", "preferredEvidenceTypes": [ "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "ARCHITECTURE_ARTIFACT" ], "preferredArtifactTypes": [ "SERVICE_DOCUMENT", "EXPORT_SAMPLE", "ARCHITECTURE_DIAGRAM" ], "captureRule": "Create a separate Evidence row for each atomic answer. Record only what was demonstrated, documented, or stated; classify claims honestly and state the limitation. Attach the strongest available Artifact.", "downstreamUse": [ "Exit Constraint", "Reuse/Outsource Hypothesis" ] } ] } ], "stopRules": [ "Technical or operational representative is unavailable for the material question.", "The discussion remains marketing-only or produces only unsupported verbal claims.", "A practical demonstration is reasonably expected but cannot be shown and no equivalent evidence is provided.", "Architecture, API, export, ownership, or service-boundary detail remains unavailable for the material question.", "The legal or contractual identity of the source/service is materially unclear for the evidence being attributed.", "A material contradiction with official or retained evidence cannot be clarified during the session.", "The session no longer contributes evidence to a controlled discovery output." ], "contractErrors": [] }