v0.7.0: The first case: one person's estate, the mandates elicited line by line, and the grants left empty on purpose
Every shape on this site is a vendor's product in a configuration. A case is one person, the assistants they actually run and the connectors they actually switched on, with a mandate for each in their own words. The first one has two assistants, six deployments and one account four of them share, and it starts with the mandate side full and the grant side empty, which is the opposite of a shape.
v0.7.0 tag, so it shows the site as it stood at that release and not as it stands today. Read on to v0.8.0, or back to v0.6.0.A shape is the vendor's. A case is the person's
Sixteen deployment shapes, every one of them a named product in a configuration, read from the vendor's own pages on a date. That is the right unit for a library. It is not the unit anybody actually lives in. A person does not run a shape. They run two assistants, five connectors they switched on over a year, and a scheduled task they have half forgotten, and the thing they want to know is what all of that adds up to.
This release adds the object for that: a case. One person, the assistants they actually run, the connectors they actually connected, and a mandate for each elicited in their own words. It is the same four objects one level up, which is what the fractal claim has said since v0.4.0 and had never been made to do.
The person is the same. The ontology is not
One level down, a deployment is four objects over the grammar: twenty three primitives, four barriers, three undo classes. One level up, the person is four objects again, and the vocabulary has changed under them. The grant is a union of grants. The mandate is one document in one voice. The barrier on a row is whatever the weakest deployment holding that row has. And the account is the node where the two levels meet: four of the six deployments below consented separately to one Google account, and the account's exposure is a fact no single deployment's ABP can see.
The dashed box matters most. The person mentioned, almost in passing, that an assistant scouts their inbox for priority mail. That is the mail connector's grant running with nobody present, and a grant with no person in front of it is a different shape from the same grant in a chat, because every clause that says ask me first has nobody to ask. It got a deployment of its own and the only clauses that can hold on it are report only ones.
Said, inferred, unstated
An elicited mandate that does not say which of its lines the person actually uttered is an authored one wearing their name. So every wanted or refused line in every case mandate carries one of two marks and the fragment it came from, and every line the person never raised is marked unstated rather than quietly filled in. The sixteenth gate check refuses a case where any wanted or refused line lacks the mark.
The grant side is empty, and it says so on every page
A shape starts with the grant full and the mandate as a starting point. A case starts the other way round. Nobody has measured what these six deployments can do: the consent screens were not captured, the tool lists were not read, and nothing was probed. So each deployment names the nearest published shape where one exists, a provisional delta is computed against it, and the page says on the row, in the note and in the JSON that this is not the deployment's delta. Where no shape exists, none is computed, because a delta against nothing is the authored delta this site refuses.
| Deployment | Nearest published shape | What it is standing in for |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT with Gmail | anthropic/gmail-connector/default | a different client on the same platform; the Google scopes are the same layer |
| ChatGPT with Drive | google/drive/readonly-connector | the read only shape; the real consent may be wider by every write row |
| The inbox scout | generic/scheduled-job/service-account | not a mail connector at all; what it shares is that nobody is watching |
| Calendar, the note taker, Slack | none | the gap is declared and no delta is stored |
The grant gets filled the way the walkthrough at v0.6.0 fills it: the person runs the discovery prompt on each page in their own assistant, and the answers become the rows. That is why every deployment page ends with one.
The grammar has no word for the thing they value most
The clearest finding in the release, and it is recorded rather than fixed. The twenty three primitives were promoted from a capability map drawn for coding agents and browsers. A calendar event is not in it. Neither is a read or unread state, a share setting, a transcript or a channel post. So the calendar deployment, the one the person said runs their life, has a mandate over primitives that is nearly empty: nothing wanted, two refused by inference, twenty one unstated.
This is not an argument for adding calendar primitives tomorrow. The grammar is owned by the map and bridged, not merged, and a word added here would be a word nobody else shares. It is an argument for what the clauses are for: the rules that cannot be expressed as a permission were always going to live in the document rather than the grant, and this case shows exactly which ones.
The calendar has no backup
Asked, the person said that as far as they know a deleted event is gone. The one trail is the mailbox: invitations, updates, declines and cancellations arrive as mail. So an event that came from somebody else could be rebuilt from the person's own inbox; one they created with guests could be rebuilt from somebody's inbox, perhaps not theirs; one they created alone never left the calendar. The proportion between the three is what a deletion would cost, and nobody knows it.
The calendar clauses ask the assistant to say which of the three an event is before touching it. That is a rule that costs nothing and would have been impossible to write without the interview, which is the case for eliciting rather than authoring in one sentence.
The clauses, in their voice, for them to correct
Each deployment page carries a clause set drafted as the person would say it, with the instruction to edit it first, because the lines they change are the ones that were actually theirs. The scout's is the shortest and the strictest.
u9 stops being a name
The universes map at v0.4.1 named the estate as universe u9 and marked it a gap: a name so that a twin would have an address to attach to, with nothing behind it. This release puts the first thing behind it and changes the status to partial, with the note saying exactly how partial. One estate, as authored data, written down from an interview rather than synchronised from anything. Not a twin. No node of it in the graph.
What this release did not settle
- No grant in the case is measured, and the gate now refuses a case that claims otherwise. The six discovery prompts are the way that changes, and the person has not run them yet.
- The mandate is a draft the person has not corrected. Its status says elicited and its
correctedfield is null. The correction is the mandate; this is what it will be made from. - Six open questions only the person can answer, each of which moves a barrier or a mandate line: what produces the priority marking, how the scout is implemented, which scopes the calendar and drive consents asked for, the approval mode on Slack, what the note taker exposes, and what fraction of the calendar could be rebuilt.
- The estate is not in the graph. u9 is partial as data and still empty as nodes;
instantiatesandone_setting_awayare proposed verbs with nothing walking them. - The grammar gap is recorded and not filled. Calendar events, read state, share settings, transcripts and channel posts have no primitive, and adding one here would be a word nobody else shares.
The case · The estate universe · The walkthrough its prompts come from · v0.7.0's own release record