Design Examination
Scope and evidence
All 61 design artifacts and the module’s responsibilities have received an independent source review and final OpenAI wording. The examination checked object attributes and relationships, declared constraints, lifecycle guards, workflow effects and failure branches, route permissions, registration capabilities, decision origins and planning references. The evidence inventory and changes for each artifact are recorded above.
The review covers 53 invariants, 53 transitions and 79 workflow hops. The contracts account for 93 business operations and three health helper declarations. All 29 declared module tables and three query views have an object home, including version storage, managed files and the shared review ledger facets.
There are no matching meeting, decision or recruitment screens in the permitted console pages, so there is no invented screen contract. Portal screens outside those paths remain unverified. Every service contract and workflow declares an empty inference list, consistent with the absence of model calls in the inspected sources.
Corrections
Meeting and minutes relationships now permit multiple successors referencing one predecessor. Terminal meeting edits distinguish staff restrictions from later system settlement. Decision deadlines apply when asynchronous voting opens; frozen approval and vote protections are qualified where only declarations were available.
The series model now includes pausing an ended series and permits its implemented reactivation. The nomination model includes declining and withdrawing during review, and identifies the review transition as a pure action without a demonstrated caller. Decision opening no longer promises a fresh meeting-status check after drafting. Opening visibility and filling distinguish the implemented closing-date filter from an opening-date gate that does not exist.
Workflow wording now distinguishes an expiring claim from protection against overlapping external calls. Minutes approval distinguishes recording an asynchronous approval request from closing its decision. Submission handling preserves an existing summary when answers are absent and separates answer-reading failures from consequence handling. Purge ordering is qualified by its dependency contract and the unavailable coordinating implementation.
Nomination identity now describes the stronger service requirement for a name and e-mail address alongside the weaker database check. Contracts use the exact disclosure permission keys. Notices describe their actual preparation checks and later dispatch, while decision records retain the observed inside-transaction ballot and communication preparation calls.
Observations previously labelled as test evidence now identify code observation. Two database protection claims are unknown and point to the enforcement finding. The responsibilities retain service and object ownership but omit those unverified guarantees. Identifier allocation, product decisions and proposed intent remain intact; the changes inventory records every changed metadata field, including corrected evidence and the added source pins.
Open decisions and limits
The requested brief is absent and the planning artifacts remain draft. Existing product decisions were cited rather than re-decided, and the planning layer was left untouched. Completing this examination does not approve the planning layer or proposed design decisions.
The weakest technical evidence concerns migration protections and shared-library behavior outside the permitted source paths. Health helper identifiers follow their declared convention; external deduplication and lease settlement do not have end-to-end proof. The disclosure request can race review, and publication through subject kinds does not establish an approved exemption for member intake.
Earlier findings about unavailable integrations, lost or skipped notices, inactive attention publication, staff-only refusal observation, retention and uncalled review remain open. The six new findings record planning status, expiring claims, disclosure review races, screen scope, database enforcement and intake publication. Conformance and corpus tests validate the documentation, not the runtime behavior of these integrations.
Verdict for Andrew
The design faithfully describes the inspected module code at the pinned revisions, with unsupported guarantees explicitly qualified and unresolved discrepancies recorded. Its weakest areas are database enforcement, external integration behavior and evidence for the eventual user surfaces. Before implementation preparation starts, complete the planning approval gate and decide the staff surface, notice and voting integration expectations, and the member-intake publication policy.