Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/security-field-guides/qualification/ field guide / candidate # Security field guides — qualification The distinct qualification record for Security field guides. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## Record status **Record ID**: field-guide:security-field-guides **Parent lifecycle**: candidate **Page lane**: docs_urls **Lane lifecycle**: proposed **Owner**: Stan **Owner role**: Not separately recorded **Owner status**: Not separately recorded **Qualification result**: NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Field guides — documentation]() — Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held. ## Qualification status **Result**: NOT RUN **Disposition**: HELD **Reviewer**: Not recorded **Receipt**: Not recorded This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the docs_urls lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect. ### Lane-specific instrument aids [checksum-verifierrequired · Verify a supplied checksum for an evidence file or receipt input when a digest is available; record the input, output, and limitation.]() ## Outcome definitions **Verified**: All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect. **Failed**: One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason. **Needs review**: Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer. **Held**: Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent. The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only. ## Proposed deterministic acceptance tests Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded. - The overview page identifies the guide as proposed and states that provider, credential, database, customer, publication, and production effects are held. - Each documentation route has a distinct purpose and contains content not duplicated from the overview or other routes. - The steps page includes ordered actions, record ownership, pause conditions, escalation, evidence capture, and handoff requirements. - The tools page distinguishes interfaces, records, and the optional verified instrument; it does not claim any native surface is a connected web feature. - The forms page contains implementable fields for scope, risk, provenance, deadlines, approvals, and qualification. - The examples page uses clearly labelled illustrative scenarios and includes at least one failure or held state. - The qualification page separates evidence-backed observations from assumptions and does not certify deployment, security posture, provider connection, or customer indexing. - The related-jobs page links Security engineering, Architecture and implementation, SRE and incident command, Fleet operations, and Receipt-backed handoffs with distinct descriptions. - A submitted record preserves canonical ID, origin, source locator, source SHA-256 when present, provenance, revision, lifecycle, tags, links, attachments, and record revisions. - Keyboard navigation, visible focus, labelled form controls, non-color-only lifecycle states, readable error messages, and screen-reader-compatible status text are present. - Invalid or incomplete submissions identify missing owner, scope, deadline decision, evidence, or approval fields and do not qualify the work. - A held decision preserves the reason, open questions, next review date, and receipt rather than presenting completion. ## Negative and held-state tests - A named native surface may be mistaken for a connected production security system. - Local notes or file references may be mistaken for authoritative evidence, protected storage, or customer data custody. - Checksum verification can confirm a supplied digest comparison but cannot prove provenance, trustworthiness, authorization, or absence of compromise. - A qualified documentation proposal may be misread as an implemented control, incident resolution, deployment, or compliance certification. - Security-sensitive details may be overexposed if visibility, attachments, and record links are not reviewed before handoff. - Deadline and agenda records may be mistaken for external calendar writes or operational commitments. - Agent receipts may be incomplete, stale, or outside the agent's declared authority; human review is required. - Accessibility failures can hide held states, errors, or approval requirements from some reviewers. ## Qualification claim boundary ### Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence - This is a proposed source-backed field-guide structure for security-related planning and handoffs. - The guide organizes security engineering, architecture and implementation, SRE and incident command, fleet operations, and receipt-backed handoffs. - The documented workflow requires provenance, deadlines, failure states, human review, and preserved receipts. - The listed local Notebook, PointGuard, and verified instrument surfaces are intended as bounded planning and inspection aids. ### Still held - No claim of deployment, production readiness, security certification, incident resolution, or operational effectiveness. - No claim of provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or external calendar connection. - No claim that local records are the authoritative security system of record. - No claim that an agent performed external actions, sent messages, changed infrastructure, or completed a handoff. - No claim that checksum verification establishes authenticity, integrity beyond the supplied comparison, or customer-safe storage. - No claim of customer indexing, public publication, or qualification until a separately reviewed implementation record exists. ## Sources and evidence These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment. - `source_record:field-guide:security-field-guides` - `agents/index.html#stan` - `source_record.record_id=field-guide:security-field-guides` - `source_record.owner_agents=Stan` - `source_record.related_jobs=Security engineering; Architecture and implementation; SRE and incident command; Fleet operations; Receipt-backed handoffs` - `observed_native_contract.project_and_field_guide_collections` - `observed_native_contract.deadlines` - `observed_native_contract.records` - `observed_native_contract.pointguard` - `app_routes=/app/notebook/field-guides/; /app/notebook/notes/; /app/notebook/files/; /app/notebook/to-dos/; /app/notebook/approvals/; /app/notebook/agent-logs/; /app/notebook/search/; /app/pointguard/` - `allowed_instrument=checksum-verifier`