Assurance preflight — qualification

Record status

Record ID

tool:assurance-preflight

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

docs_qualification

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Stan

Owner role

Chief Security and Engineering Officer

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Tools — overview — Inspect the tool contract, usage, boundaries, and proposed qualification checks. 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_qualification lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

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.

Catalog-observed source metadata

These fields are reproduced from the admitted candidate record for source-fidelity inspection. Presence does not prove implementation, connection, qualification, authority, or an external effect.

tool_id

tool:assurance-preflight

slug

assurance-preflight

title

Assurance preflight

owner_agents

Stan

owner_roles

Chief Security and Engineering Officer

related_jobs

Security engineering; Architecture and implementation; SRE and incident command; Fleet operations; Receipt-backed handoffs

related_field_guides

Security field guides; Supabase field guide; Cloudflare operations; Current-work packets

principal_gates

Destructive remediation; Money or purchasing; Credential changes; Public deployment; Legal filing

never_rules

Manufacture Antonio's authority; Treat confidence as permission; Convert a proposal into an effect

lifecycle

candidate

source_refs

agents/index.html#stan

Proposed deterministic qualification tests

• Overview states that the catalog observation does not prove implementation, connection, qualification, deployment, or authority.
• Every principal gate has an independent pass, fail, or hold result and cannot inherit a result from another gate.
• A request with no source reference is held.
• A request asserting authority from confidence, job title, or tool availability alone is held.
• A destructive remediation request without explicit authorization and reversible plan is held.
• A money or purchasing request without approved scope, amount, and authority evidence is held.
• A credential-change request without verified identity, scope, rotation plan, and rollback evidence is held.
• A public-deployment request without deployment evidence, review receipt, rollback plan, and named authority is held.
• A legal-filing request without documented legal authority and required filing evidence is held.
• Secrets, tokens, personal data, and unnecessary identifiers are rejected from ordinary receipt fields or require redaction.
• Accessibility review passes only when all controls are keyboard reachable, labels are programmatically associated, focus is visible, errors are textual, status is not conveyed by color alone, and content remains usable at zoom.
• Abuse review holds requests that seek credential exfiltration, destructive commands, unauthorized access, privacy bypass, or evasion of review.
• Source review rejects invented providers, metrics, customer use, effects, current status, or implementation details.
• Authority review never manufactures Antonio's authority and never treats confidence as permission.
• The final result remains proposal-only and cannot claim that an effect occurred.
• A receipt-backed handoff includes inputs, evidence, checks, decision, owner, timestamp, hazards, and next review step.
• Each documentation route has distinct content and a stable heading, title, and link target.
• Disposed or unavailable instruments are not referenced; no compatible instrument is proposed because the supplied directory does not establish a necessary instrument for this tool.

Negative and abuse cases

• The tool is observed in an agent catalog, but implementation is unproven.
• Connection, qualification, deployment, and operational authority are unproven.
• Role and owner text may be mistaken for permission to execute consequential actions.
• Incomplete or stale receipts can create false assurance.
• Security workflows may expose credentials, personal data, or sensitive infrastructure details.
• Preflight documentation could be misused to legitimize an otherwise unauthorized action.
• Accessibility defects could prevent reviewers from seeing warnings, holds, or errors.
• A proposal-only result could be misread as evidence that remediation or deployment occurred.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after evidence and review

• The supplied record identifies the tool as assurance-preflight.
• The supplied record names Stan as owner agent and Chief Security and Engineering Officer as owner role.
• The supplied record relates the tool to the listed jobs and field guides.
• The supplied record lists five principal gates and three never-rules.
• The supplied record cites agents/index.html#stan as its source reference.
• The documentation and tests in this candidate are proposals.

Still held

• The tool is implemented or callable.
• The tool is connected to any system.
• The tool has passed qualification or production deployment.
• The tool can remediate infrastructure, change credentials, spend money, deploy publicly, or file legal documents.
• Stan or any other person has authority for a specific consequential action.
• Antonio has authority.
• Any customer uses the tool.
• The tool provides current metrics, effects, or security guarantees.
• Any review, remediation, deployment, purchase, credential change, or filing has occurred.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• source_record:tool:assurance-preflight
• agents/index.html#stan