docs(P4): complete matrix + review + manifest integration phase

---ci--- project: atelier phase: 4 milestone: v0.3 status: complete requirements: covered: [ATELIER-80, ATELIER-81, ATELIER-82, ATELIER-83, ATELIER-84, ATELIER-85] partial: [] ---/ci---
docs(ship): P3 complete — checkpoint + roadmap status
2026-08-05 03:35:26 +00:00 · 2026-08-05 03:30:29 +00:00 · 2026-08-05 03:30:14 +00:00 · 2026-08-05 03:24:26 +00:00
18 changed files with 1825 additions and 25 deletions
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 {
-  "phase": 1,
+  "phase": 3,
  "stage": "complete",
  "milestone": "v0.3",
  "phase_role": "execution",
  "project": "atelier",
  "attempts": 0,
-  "updated_at": "2026-08-05T03:25:00Z",
+  "updated_at": "2026-08-05T03:45:00Z",
-  "phase_tag": "v0.2.1",
+  "phase_tag": "v0.2.3",
-  "release_id": 469
+  "release_id": 471
 }
@@ -86,8 +86,8 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.1.5) IS the v0.2 deliv
 |-------|------|------|--------|------------------|
 | 0 | Pre-Execution | docs | complete | Spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, PERSONAS.md (extends platform-engineer, adds ml-engineer) — shipped v0.2.0 |
 | 1 | GitOps + Operators Domain | docs | complete | domains/gitops-operators/{first-principles, argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery}.md — shipped v0.2.1 |
-| 2 | AI/ML Domain | docs | pending | domains/ai-ml/{first-principles, data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift}.md |
+| 2 | AI/ML Domain | docs | complete | domains/ai-ml/{first-principles, data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift}.md — shipped v0.2.2 |
-| 3 | i18n + Compliance Domains | docs | pending | domains/i18n/{first-principles, locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n}.md, domains/compliance/{first-principles, audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence}.md |
+| 3 | i18n + Compliance Domains | docs | complete | domains/i18n/{first-principles, locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n}.md, domains/compliance/{first-principles, audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence}.md — shipped v0.2.3 |
 | 4 | Matrix + Review Integration | docs | pending | matrix/principles-matrix.md (+40 mappings), matrix/domain-coverage.md (incl. C-rule coverage table update), review/{agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns}.md, MANIFEST.md (+ examples/ listing per ATELIER-91) |
 | 5 | Examples + Cross-Links | docs | pending | examples/good + examples/bad for 4 domains, cross-links to devops/security/observability/data/k8s/iac |
 | 6 | Final Review + Ship | docs | pending | Review passed, audit clean, milestone merged to main, tag v0.2.6 |
@@ -36,13 +36,43 @@
 | DevOps        | ✓                | ci-cd, environments |
 | Infrastructure as Code | ✓      | terraform, opentofu, state, modules |
 | Kubernetes    | ✓                | workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize |
 | GitOps + Operators | ✓           | argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery |
 | AI / ML       | ✓                | data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift |
 | i18n          | ✓                | locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n |
 | Compliance    | ✓                | audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence |
 ## Examples
 > Examples are illustrative markdown with fenced code only (no standalone runtime artifacts per D-020 / D-025). The `examples/` directory listing closes the v0.2 ESC-002 drift (IDEATE-17, ATELIER-91). P5 examples populate this section.
 | Path | Status | Notes |
 |------|--------|-------|
 | `examples/good/` | (pending P5) | Good-example directory — to be populated by v0.3 P5 |
 | `examples/bad/` | (pending P5) | Bad-example directory — to be populated by v0.3 P5 |
 | `examples/good/api-endpoint.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/good/react-component.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/good/db-schema.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/good/error-handler.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/bad/god-object.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/bad/silent-error.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/bad/leaky-abstraction.md` | (pending P5) | v0.1 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/good/terraform-module.md` | (pending P5) | v0.2 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/good/k8s-deployment.md` | (pending P5) | v0.2 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/bad/terraform-unlocked-state.md` | (pending P5) | v0.2 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/bad/k8s-bare-pod-no-resources.md` | (pending P5) | v0.2 example — to be listed when P5 back-fills |
 | `examples/good/gitops-pr.md` | (pending P5) | v0.3 example — to be authored in P5 |
 | `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md` | (pending P5) | v0.3 example — to be authored in P5 |
 | `examples/bad/i18n-string-concat.md` | (pending P5) | v0.3 example — to be authored in P5 |
 | `examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md` | (pending P5) | v0.3 example — to be authored in P5 |
 > **Note:** The `examples/` section structure is established here (P4) so P5 can populate it. Files marked "pending P5" do not yet exist; they will be authored in Phase 5 and promoted from `pending` to `✓` upon completion. Listing them here as `pending` makes the manifest authoritative about what *will* exist and prevents drift.
 ## Cross-Cutting
 | Document                          | Purpose                          |
 |-----------------------------------|----------------------------------|
-| `matrix/principles-matrix.md`     | Maps domain → core principles (13 domains, 130 P-rules post-v0.2) |
+| `matrix/principles-matrix.md`     | Maps domain → core principles (17 domains, 170 P-rules post-v0.3) |
-| `matrix/domain-coverage.md`       | Maps core → domains; per-domain coverage |
+| `matrix/domain-coverage.md`       | Maps core → domains; per-domain coverage (incl. v0.3 Core Principle Coverage) |
-| `review/agent-checklist.md`       | Pre-completion agent checklist (incl. IaC + k8s triggers) |
+| `review/agent-checklist.md`       | Pre-completion agent checklist (incl. IaC + k8s + gitops + ai-ml + i18n + compliance triggers) |
-| `review/peer-review-checklist.md` | Human peer-review checklist (incl. IaC + k8s sections) |
+| `review/peer-review-checklist.md` | Human peer-review checklist (incl. IaC + k8s + gitops + ai-ml + i18n + compliance sections) |
-| `review/anti-patterns.md`         | Catalog of violations (incl. IaC + k8s + chaos anti-patterns) |
+| `review/anti-patterns.md`         | Catalog of violations (incl. IaC + k8s + gitops + ai-ml + i18n + compliance + v0.3 chaos anti-patterns) |
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
 # Audit Logs — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P1
 > (Audit Logs are Append-Only), P2 (Every Significant Action is
 > Logged), P7 (Identity is Attributable), P9 (Secrets Redacted in
 > Audit), and P10 (Compliance Posture Observable). Referenced by
 > `data-retention.md` (retention applies to audit logs themselves)
 > and `evidence.md` (audit logs are evidence).
 ## Audit Logs are Append-Only (P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only)
 - An audit record is immutable once written. The storage substrate
  enforces this; policy alone does not. Write-once, append-only
  sinks (WORM buckets, immutable log streams, hash-chained ledgers)
  are the mechanism.
 - Deletion or mutation of an audit record is itself an auditable
  incident. The tampering is the signal, not just the underlying
  event. A system that allows `DELETE FROM audit_log` is a system
  whose audit log is a draft.
 - The append-only guarantee is testable: attempt to write, then
  attempt to overwrite, then attempt to delete. If the overwrite or
  delete succeeds, the guarantee is absent and the design is a
  violation.
 ## Structured Audit Events (P2 Every Significant Action is Logged)
 - The set of auditable actions is defined a priori, in code, before
  the action ships. The catalog is versioned and reviewed. An
  auditable action with no log line is a violation, not a gap to
  backfill later.
 - Audit events are structured (JSON / protobuf / a typed schema),
  not prose. A prose log line ("user logged in") is unqueryable and
  unaggregatable; a structured event is both. The event schema is
  the contract between the producer and the audit pipeline.
  ```
  {
    "timestamp": "2024-11-07T15:03:22Z",
    "event": "auth.login",
    "actor": { "kind": "user", "id": "u_8f3a", "session": "s_12b9" },
    "action": "succeeded",
    "target": { "kind": "service", "id": "billing-api" },
    "source": { "ip": "203.0.113.42", "region": "us-east-1" },
    "request_id": "req_91c2",
    "version": "audit-schema/v2"
  }
  ```
 - The catalog of significant actions typically includes:
  authentication (success and failure), authorization decisions
  (allow and deny), data access (read, write, delete), configuration
  changes, policy changes, retention executions, and admin
  operations. The exact set is declared per system; the discipline
  is that it is declared.
 ## Cloud Audit Log Conventions (Prior Art, Abstracted)
 - AWS CloudTrail, Google Cloud Audit Logs, and Azure Activity Log
  share a common shape: immutable, time-ordered, queryable, with
  actor / action / target / source / result fields. Atelier's
  audit-logs doc adopts the shape, not the vendor.
 - The shape is the contract; the sink is the implementation. A
  self-hosted audit log that follows the same shape composes with
  the same tooling (SIEM, query engines, evidence exporters) as the
  cloud vendors'.
 ## Queryability (P10 Compliance Posture Observable)
 - An audit log that cannot be queried is an audit log that cannot be
  used. Queryability is a first-class design goal: the event schema
  is typed, fields are indexed, and the common queries (who acted on
  what when, what failed, what was denied) are cheap.
 - "Who did X between T1 and T2" must be a single query, not a
  forensics project. If the query requires a custom script per
  investigation, the audit log is structured for storage, not for
  use — a C7 (Observability) violation.
 ## Identity is Attributable (P7 Identity is Attributable)
 - Every audit event records the authenticated principal that acted —
  not a shared account, not a generic service, not "admin." The
  actor field is populated at the time of the action from the
  authenticated session, not resolved after the fact.
 - A shared account in the actor field breaks accountability: an
  event attributed to `svc-deploy` could be any of ten engineers.
  This is the compliance angle on `domains/security/authorization.md`
  and `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`: bind actions to unique
  principals, not to roles many can assume.
 - Machine-to-machine actions record the workload identity (a service
  account, a signed instance identity), not a human — but the
  identity is still unique and attributable to a deployable unit.
 ## Redaction at the Boundary (P9 Secrets Redacted in Audit)
 - Audit logs must not leak secrets, credentials, tokens, or PII.
  Redaction is structural: applied at the logging boundary, before
  the record is written to the append-only sink — not opportunistic
  scrubbing after the fact. Once a secret is in an append-only log,
  the remediation is expensive (rotate, rewrite access scope), so
  redaction-at-source is the only sound position.
 - The redaction policy is itself auditable: which fields are
  redacted, by what rule, in which event type. A redaction rule
  that lives in someone's head is a P9 violation waiting to happen.
  ```
  // before redaction (DO NOT LOG)
  {
    "event": "config.read",
    "target": { "kind": "secret", "id": "db-password" },
    "value": "p@ssw0rd-plaintext-leaked"   // VIOLATION
  }
  // after structural redaction
  {
    "event": "config.read",
    "target": { "kind": "secret", "id": "db-password" },
    "value": "[REDACTED:secret]",
    "redaction": "secret-value-policy/v1"
  }
  ```
 - Never log request bodies, response bodies, headers like
  `Authorization`, or environment variables that may carry secrets.
  Log the *fact* of the action, not the *content* of the secret.
 ## Retention of Audit Logs Themselves
 - Audit logs are subject to retention policy (cross `data-
  retention.md`), but the floor is set by the accountability need,
  not by storage economy. An audit log deleted before its retention
  period is a P1 violation dressed as a P3 action.
 - The retention rule for audit logs is itself logged (meta-audit):
  when an audit log segment ages out and is deleted, the deletion is
  recorded in a higher-tier audit log with the rule that authorized
  it. The chain is observable end to end.
 ## What Violates Audit-Log Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | Audit log on a mutable filesystem with no write-once protection | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
 | `DELETE FROM audit_log WHERE timestamp < ...` as routine cleanup | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
 | An auth-success event with no audit record | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
 | A prose log line ("user did a thing") instead of a structured event | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
 | A shared `admin` account as the actor in audit events | P7 Identity is Attributable |
 | An `Authorization: Bearer <token>` header logged in plaintext | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit |
 | A redaction rule applied inconsistently across event types | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit |
 | "Who did X?" requires a custom forensics script per investigation | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable |
 | An audit log segment deleted with no meta-audit record | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/observability/logging.md` — audit logs are structured
  logging with an append-only guarantee; the logging primitives
  (levels, structured fields, correlation IDs) compose here.
 - `domains/security/authorization.md` — the actor in an audit event
  is the principal the authorization layer authenticated.
 - `domains/security/secrets.md` — redaction at the logging boundary
  is the audit-side complement of secret management.
 - `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` — retention policy applies
  to audit logs; the audit log's own deletion is meta-audited.
 - `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — audit logs are a primary
  evidence artifact; the append-only guarantee is what makes them
  admissible.
 - `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` — workload identity in audit events
  derives from the RBAC principal that acted.
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
 # Data Retention — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P3
 > (Retention is Policy, Not Storage) and the data-shape angle on P8
 > (Subject Access is Honored). Referenced by `audit-logs.md`
 > (retention applies to audit logs) and `evidence.md` (evidence has
 > a retention lifecycle). Framework-agnostic per D-024 — no
 > regulation-specific retention periods.
 ## Retention is Policy, Not Storage (P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage)
 - Data lifetime is declared and enforced as policy, in code — not
  left to the storage layer's defaults. The policy names what data
  class is retained for how long, what action fires at end-of-life
  (delete, archive, anonymize), and what exception path exists (a
  legal hold suspends deletion).
 - Deletion at end-of-life is a feature, not a failure. A system that
  cannot delete on schedule is a system that over-retains, which is
  the symmetric violation of a system that under-retains. Both are
  P3 violations; the policy is the arbiter.
 - "We kept it because the bucket was cheap" is a violation. "We
  deleted it because the policy said to" is correct. Cost does not
  override policy; policy is the contract.
 ## Retention Policy as Code
 - Retention rules live as code: lifecycle rules on the storage
  layer, scheduled deletion jobs, tiered storage transitions, and
  anonymization transforms. The code is versioned, reviewed, and
  auditable. A retention rule in a spreadsheet is a wishlist; the
  same rule in a reviewed, deployable lifecycle policy is a control.
  ```
  // illustrative lifecycle policy (abstracted, no vendor DSL)
  // object-storage lifecycle
  {
    "rules": [
      {
        "name": "user-events-90d",
        "match": { "prefix": "events/" },
        "transitions": [
          { "after": "30d", "to": "tier-cold" },
          { "after": "90d", "action": "delete" }
        ]
      },
      {
        "name": "audit-log-7y",
        "match": { "prefix": "audit/" },
        "transitions": [
          { "after": "365d", "to": "tier-archive" },
          { "after": "2555d", "action": "delete" }
        ],
        "legal_hold": "suspends-action"
      }
    ]
  }
  ```
 - The retention policy is itself auditable: which rule fired when,
  against which objects, with what result. The deletion events are
  logged (`audit-logs.md`) — deletion is a significant action.
 ## Retention vs. Backup — The Distinction
 - A **backup** is a recovery mechanism: it exists to restore data
  after loss. A **retention rule** is a deletion mechanism: it
  exists to remove data at end-of-life. Conflating them produces
  data that survives both the deletion policy and the disaster —
  which is the opposite of compliance.
 - A backup is governed by a recovery-point / recovery-time objective;
  a retention rule is governed by a lifetime. They are independent
  contracts. A backup that is also the retention store is a store
  where nothing is ever deleted, which is a P3 violation.
 - A legal hold suspends retention deletion for a defined data set
  (e.g. data under investigation). The hold is itself a policy
  action, auditable and time-bounded, not a manual override.
 ## Retention is Distinct per Data Class
 - Different data classes have different lifetimes. The retention
  policy enumerates the classes and their rules; it does not apply
  one number to everything. Typical classes (the names are
  abstract; the periods are policy decisions, not regulation-
  specific):
  - **Audit logs** — long, often multi-year, governed by
    accountability needs (`audit-logs.md`).
  - **User-generated content** — tied to the user's account
    lifetime; deletion follows account deletion (cross P8 Subject
    Access).
  - **Telemetry / metrics** — short, governed by observability need
    (`domains/observability/metrics.md`); high-resolution data ages
    to downsampled aggregates.
  - **Evidence artifacts** — tied to the audit cycle
    (`evidence.md`); the cycle ends, the evidence ages out.
 - A single retention rule for "all data" is a C3 (Simplicity)
  violation of the wrong kind: it is simpler than the requirement
  allows.
 ## Subject Access is Honored (P8 Subject Access is Honored)
 - Data-subject rights — access (what do we have on this subject),
  export (in a portable form), deletion (and prove it), correction
  — are operations with defined contracts and audit trails, not
  ad-hoc tickets. The system implements them as first-class
  operations; a subject-access request that requires a forensics
  team is a correctness defect.
 - Retention and subject access interact at deletion: a subject
  deletion request fires the deletion policy for that subject's
  data, the deletion is audited, and the proof of deletion is
  returned to the subject (and recorded). A subject deletion that
  skips the audit is a P8 violation dressed as a P3 success.
 - Cross `domains/data/schema-design.md`: subject access is only
  computable if the schema tags which records belong to which
  subject. A schema with no subject linkage cannot honor a subject
  request — it cannot find the data to delete.
 ## Retention Migration Discipline
 - Retention rules change. When the policy changes (a class's
  lifetime shortens or lengthens), the change is a migration: the
  new rule applies to data ingested after the cutover, and a
  backfill applies the new rule to existing data where applicable.
  Cross `domains/data/migrations.md` for the schema-lifecycle
  discipline this mirrors.
 - A retention rule change that is not versioned, not reviewed, and
  not backfilled is a P3 violation: the policy is not actually the
  policy if the storage layer does not reflect it.
 ## What Violates Retention Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | Data kept indefinitely because "storage is cheap" | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 | A retention rule in a spreadsheet, not in code | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 | A backup bucket used as the retention store (nothing ever deletes) | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 | A single retention period applied to all data classes | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 | A subject deletion with no audit record of the deletion | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
 | A subject-access request that requires a forensics team | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
 | A schema with no subject linkage (cannot find data to delete) | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
 | A legal hold applied ad hoc, not as a policy action | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 | A retention rule change with no backfill to existing data | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/data/schema-design.md` — retention requires the schema
  to tag data class and subject linkage; subject access is only
  computable over a schema that supports it.
 - `domains/data/migrations.md` — retention rule changes are
  migrations; the discipline (version, review, backfill) mirrors
  schema migrations.
 - `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — audit logs have their own
  retention floor; deletion of an audit segment is meta-audited.
 - `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — evidence artifacts have a
  retention lifecycle tied to the audit cycle.
 - `domains/observability/metrics.md` — telemetry retention is
  governed by observability need; high-res data ages to aggregates.
 - `domains/security/secrets.md` — secrets have a retention lifecycle
  tied to rotation; a secret past its rotation date is overdue, not
  retained.
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
 # Evidence — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P6
 > (Evidence is Collected Continuously), P5 (Policy is a Gate, so
 > decisions are evidence), P7 (Identity Attributable, so evidence
 > has provenance), and P10 (Posture Observable, so evidence is
 > queryable). Referenced by `audit-logs.md` (logs are evidence)
 > and `data-retention.md` (evidence has a lifecycle).
 ## Evidence is Collected Continuously (P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously)
 - Evidence of compliance — logs, configs, scans, attestations,
  policy decisions, access reviews — is gathered as a byproduct of
  operation, not assembled manually at audit time. The audit-time
  scramble is the anti-pattern: it is expensive, it is incomplete,
  and it produces evidence that is reconstructed rather than
  recorded.
 - Continuous evidence collection means the audit packet is a query
  over already-collected artifacts, not a forensic reconstruction.
  The auditor asks "show me the access reviews for Q3" and the
  answer is a query against the evidence store, not a six-week
  project.
 - This is the compliance angle on `domains/observability/tracing.md`
  for distributed evidence (a trace spans the request that produced
  the evidence) and `domains/observability/metrics.md` for posture
  signals (a metric is a continuous evidence stream).
 ## Evidence is a Byproduct, Not a Deliverable
 - Evidence collected as a byproduct is trustworthy: it records what
  happened, when it happened, recorded by the system that did it.
  Evidence assembled at audit time is less trustworthy: it records
  what someone remembered to write down, when they wrote it, after
  the fact.
 - The mechanism: every significant action (`audit-logs.md`) emits
  its record to an evidence store; every policy decision
  (`policy-as-code.md`) emits its decision; every deployment emits
  its signed attestation; every access review emits its result. The
  store is append-only (`audit-logs.md` P1), queryable (P10), and
  retention-bound (`data-retention.md`).
 ## Provenance and Identity (P7 Identity is Attributable)
 - Evidence has provenance: which system produced it, when, from what
  input. An evidence artifact with no provenance is anecdote, not
  evidence — it cannot be attributed to a source, so it cannot be
  trusted.
 - Provenance includes the identity of the producer (a workload
  identity, a service account) and the chain of custody (who has
  had access to the artifact since it was produced). Cross
  `domains/security/authorization.md`: the producer's identity is
  authenticated, not assumed.
 ## Signed Attestations (IDEATE-29)
 - A signed attestation is evidence with a cryptographic signature
  binding the artifact to its producer. The signature is the
  provenance: it can be verified independently of the producer, and
  it cannot be forged without the producer's key. Cross
  `domains/security/supply-chain.md` for the supply-chain angle.
 - Cosign (Sigstore) and in-toto are the canonical patterns: a
  builder signs an artifact (container image, deployable, evidence
  bundle) at production time; a verifier checks the signature at
  consumption time. The signature is the evidence that the artifact
  came from where it claims to have come from.
 - **Illustrative signed attestation (Cosign / Sigstore format, NOT
  a real signature — illustrative only, no live keys):**
  ```
  // Cosign attest — bind an attestation to an image digest
  // (illustrative; not a real signature)
  $ cosign attest --type spdxjson \
      --predicate sbom.spdx.json \
      my-registry/app@sha256:5a3e1c...f9b2
  // The attestation is stored as a signature in the registry,
  // bound to the image digest. The payload is a DSSE envelope:
  {
    "payloadType": "application/vnd.in-toto+json",
    "payload": "eyJfdHlwZSI6ImF0dGVzdGF0aW9uIn0...",
    "signatures": [
      {
        "sig": "MEUCIQDx...illustrative-base64-signature...==",
        "keyid": "cosign-key-2024-q4"
      }
    ]
  }
  // The decoded payload (an in-toto statement binding the
  // attestation to the image digest):
  {
    "_type": "https://in-toto.io/Statement/v0.1",
    "predicateType": "https://spdx.dev/Document",
    "subject": [
      {
        "name": "my-registry/app",
        "digest": { "sha256": "5a3e1c...f9b2" }
      }
    ],
    "predicate": {
      "SPDXID": "SPDXRef-DOCUMENT",
      "creationInfo": {
        "created": "2024-11-07T15:03:22Z",
        "creators": ["Tool: atelier-build-pipeline"]
      }
    }
  }
  // Verification (independent of the producer):
  $ cosign verify-attestation --type spdxjson \
      --certificate-identity-regexp '.*atelier-build.*' \
      my-registry/app@sha256:5a3e1c...f9b2
  // Verification succeeded for: my-registry/app@sha256:5a3e1c...f9b2
  // SBOM attestation found for subject
  ```
 - The attestation is illustrative — the signatures and digests are
  not real. The shape (DSSE envelope, in-toto statement, subject +
  predicate, verify-by-identity) is what evidence-as-attestation
  looks like. A real attestation carries a real signature from a
  real key held by the builder.
 ## Audit-Ready Export
 - The evidence store is queryable at any time, not only at audit
  time. The audit packet is a query (a date range, a data class, a
  subject) over the store; the export is a dump of the matching
  artifacts with their provenance and signatures.
 - An audit-ready export that requires six weeks of forensics is a
  P6 violation dressed as a success: the evidence was not collected
  continuously, it was reconstructed. The export should be a query
  that runs in minutes, not a project that runs for weeks.
 ## Evidence Lifecycle
 - Evidence has a retention lifecycle (`data-retention.md`): an
  evidence artifact is retained for the audit cycle it supports,
  then ages out. The retention rule for evidence is itself audited
  (deletion of evidence is a meta-audited action, like deletion of
  audit logs).
 - A legal hold suspends evidence deletion for a defined set — the
  same mechanism as audit-log holds.
 ## What Violates Evidence Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | Evidence assembled by hand the week before an audit | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
 | An evidence artifact with no provenance (no producer, no timestamp) | P7 Identity is Attributable |
 | An audit packet that requires six weeks of forensics to produce | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
 | An attestation with no signature (provenance asserted, not proven) | P7 Identity is Attributable |
 | Evidence store not queryable between audits | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable |
 | Evidence deleted before its retention period with no meta-audit | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
 | Policy decisions not recorded as evidence | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
 | A deployment with no signed attestation of its build provenance | P7 Identity is Attributable |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/security/supply-chain.md` — signed attestations are the
  supply-chain integrity primitive; evidence.md is the compliance
  consumer of the same artifact.
 - `domains/observability/metrics.md` — posture metrics are a
  continuous evidence stream.
 - `domains/observability/tracing.md` — distributed traces provide
  evidence that spans a request across services.
 - `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — audit logs are a primary
  evidence artifact; the append-only guarantee is what makes them
  admissible.
 - `domains/compliance/policy-as-code.md` — policy decisions are
  evidence of enforcement; the policy code itself is evidence of
  the rule.
 - `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` — evidence has a retention
  lifecycle tied to the audit cycle.
@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
 # Compliance — First Principles
 > Framework-agnostic per D-024. These principles derive from core
 > Security (a subset of C1 Correctness), Observability, and
 > Reversibility. They apply across regulations — NIST CSF, SOC 2,
 > GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001 — without prescribing any
 > regulation-specific implementation. Regulation names appear here
 > only as examples of what the principles support; the principles
 > themselves are engineering rules, not legal controls.
 ## 1. The Principles
 ### P1. Audit Logs are Append-Only
 Audit records are immutable once written. Deletion or mutation of an
 audit record is itself an auditable incident — the tampering is the
 signal, not just the underlying event. An audit log that can be edited
 is not an audit log; it is a draft. Append-only is enforced
 structurally (write-once storage, immutable buckets, hash-chained
 records), not by policy alone. This is the compliance angle on
 `domains/observability/logging.md`: structured logs that cannot be
 rewritten are the substrate of accountability.
 ### P2. Every Significant Action is Logged
 The set of auditable actions is defined a priori, in code, before the
 action ships — not retrofitted after an incident. Authentication
 changes, authorization decisions, data access, configuration changes,
 policy changes, and deletions are all significant. "We forgot to log
 it" is a violation, not an excuse. The auditable-action catalog is
 itself versioned and reviewed. A significant action with no log line
 is a C7 (Observability) defect and a C1 (Correctness) defect: the
 system's behavior is invisible, and accountability is impossible.
 ### P3. Retention is Policy, Not Storage
 Data lifetime is declared and enforced as policy, not left to the
 storage layer's defaults. Deletion at end-of-life is a feature, not a
 failure. Retention rules live as code (lifecycle rules, scheduled
 deletion jobs, tiered storage transitions), they are reviewed, and
 they are auditable. "We kept it because the bucket was cheap" is a
 violation; "we deleted it because the policy said to" is correct.
 Retention is distinct from backup: a backup is a recovery mechanism,
 a retention rule is a deletion mechanism. Keeping them conflated
 produces data that survives both the deletion policy and the
 disaster — which is the opposite of compliance. Cross
 `domains/data/migrations.md` for the schema-lifecycle discipline.
 ### P4. Policy is Code
 Compliance policy is expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable
 code (OPA / Rego, AWS Cedar, HashiCorp Sentinel, Kyverno) — not in
 spreadsheets, prose documents, or tribal knowledge. Policy in a
 spreadsheet is untestable, unreviewable, and undeployable; it is a
 wishlist, not a control. Policy-as-code inherits the disciplines of
 `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent`: declarative
 intent, version control, review before merge, plan before apply. A
 compliance rule that is not executable is a rule that cannot be
 enforced, which is a rule that does not exist.
 ### P5. Policy is Evaluated as a Gate
 Policy violations block before the action, not after the audit.
 Enforcement happens at admission time (kubernetes admission), at
 pipeline time (CI/CD gates), and at provisioning time (IaC plan
 gates) — before the non-compliant state is realized. Detecting a
 violation after it ships is detection, not enforcement. A policy that
 is "logged but not blocked" is a postcard, not a gate. This is the
 compliance angle on C5 (Reversibility): a blocked action is
 reversible by construction; a shipped violation requires remediation,
 which is more expensive than prevention.
 ### P6. Evidence is Collected Continuously
 Evidence of compliance — logs, configs, scans, attestations, policy
 decisions, access reviews — is gathered as a byproduct of operation,
 not assembled manually at audit time. The audit-time scramble is the
 anti-pattern: it is expensive, it is incomplete, and it produces
 evidence that is reconstructed rather than recorded. Continuous
 evidence collection means the audit packet is a query over
 already-collected artifacts, not a forensic reconstruction. This is
 the compliance angle on `domains/observability/tracing.md` for
 distributed evidence and `domains/observability/metrics.md` for
 posture signals.
 ### P7. Identity is Attributable
 Every logged action traces to an authenticated, non-shared principal.
 Shared accounts, generic service identities, and "admin" as an actor
 are violations: an action with no attributable human or workload is
 an action with no accountability. Identity is recorded in the audit
 record at the time of the action, not resolved after the fact. This
 is the compliance angle on `domains/security/authorization.md` and
 `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`: the audit subject must be the principal
 that acted, not a role that many can assume.
 ### P8. Subject Access is Honored
 Data-subject rights — access, export, deletion, correction — are
 operations with defined contracts and audit trails, not ad-hoc
 tickets. The system can answer "what do we have on this subject,"
 "export it in a portable form," and "delete it and prove the
 deletion" as first-class operations. These are not features bolted on
 at the end; they are contracts the data layer implements from the
 start. A subject-access request that requires a forensics team is a
 correctness defect: the system does not know what it holds. Cross
 `domains/data/schema-design.md` for the data shapes that make
 subject access computable.
 ### P9. Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit
 Audit logs themselves must not leak secrets, credentials, PII, or
 other sensitive data. Redaction is structural — applied at the
 logging boundary, before the record is written — not opportunistic
 scrubbing after the fact. A secret that appears in an audit log is a
 C1 (Correctness) violation (the log is now a secret store) and a
 security violation (`domains/security/secrets.md`). The redaction
 policy is itself auditable: which fields are redacted, by what rule,
 in which log stream. Once a secret is in an append-only log, the
 remediation is expensive — rotate the secret and rewrite the log's
 access scope — so redaction-at-source is the only sound position.
 ### P10. Compliance Posture is Observable
 The system reports its own compliance state: drift from policy, open
 violations, retention status, evidence freshness, policy-evaluation
 counts. Silent non-compliance is the bug. A compliance posture
 metric is a first-class signal (`domains/observability/metrics.md`),
 alertable, and dashboarded. "We didn't know we were non-compliant"
 is not a defense; it is a C7 (Observability) defect. The posture is
 queryable at any time, not only at audit time. This is the compliance
 angle on `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth`: the
 compliance state is a versioned, queryable truth, not a vibe.
 ## 2. Core Principle Trace
 Each compliance P-rule derives from one or more core C-rules (C1–C8).
 The matrix extension lands in P4 of the v0.3 plan; the traces below
 are authoritative.
 | P-rule | Core | Why |
 |--------|------|-----|
 | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only | C1, C5 | Correctness of the record; reversibility of tamper detection |
 | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged | C7, C1 | Observability of behavior; correctness of a-priori audit scope |
 | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage | C5, C8 | Reversibility of data lifetime; economy of storage as policy |
 | P4 Policy is Code | C6, C2 | Composability of versioned policy; clarity of executable intent |
 | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate | C1, C5 | Correctness of pre-action enforcement; reversibility of blocked actions |
 | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously | C7, C3 | Observability of compliance state; simplicity of audit-by-query |
 | P7 Identity is Attributable | C1, C7 | Correctness of accountability (security subset); observability of who acted |
 | P8 Subject Access is Honored | C1, C5 | Correctness of the data-subject contract; reversibility of deletion |
 | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit | C1, C3 | Correctness of not leaking (security subset); simplicity of structural redaction |
 | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable | C7, C1 | Observability of posture; correctness of self-reported state |
 ## 3. What Violates These Principles
 | Violation | Principle Breached |
 |-----------|-------------------|
 | An audit log stored on a mutable filesystem with no write-once protection | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
 | A `DELETE` on an audit record to "clean up a typo" | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
 | An auth change with no audit log line | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
 | "We'll add logging after we ship the feature" | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
 | Data kept indefinitely because "the bucket is cheap" | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
 | A retention rule in a spreadsheet, not in code | P4 Policy is Code |
 | A policy that logs violations but does not block the action | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
 | Evidence assembled by hand the week before an audit | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
 | A shared `admin` account as the audit actor | P7 Identity is Attributable |
 | A subject-access request that requires a forensics team | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
 | A secret visible in an audit log entry | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit |
 | No dashboard for compliance posture between audits | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable |
 ## 4. Relationship to Other Domains
 Compliance is the accountability layer that crosses
 `domains/security/` (it audits security actions),
 `domains/observability/` (audit logs are structured logging; posture
 is metrics; evidence is traces), `domains/data/` (retention and
 subject access are data-layer contracts), and
 `domains/infrastructure-as-code/` (policy-as-code parallels
 declarative IaC; compliance state parallels state-as-truth). Cross-
 links are one-directional (per D-026 extended):
 - `domains/security/authorization.md` ← P7 (attributable identity)
 - `domains/security/secrets.md` ← P9 (redaction)
 - `domains/security/supply-chain.md` ← P6 (signed attestations as evidence)
 - `domains/observability/logging.md` ← P1, P2 (audit logs = structured logging)
 - `domains/observability/metrics.md` ← P10 (compliance posture metrics)
 - `domains/observability/tracing.md` ← P6 (evidence from distributed traces)
 - `domains/data/schema-design.md` ← P3, P8 (retention and subject-access shapes)
 - `domains/data/migrations.md` ← P3 (retention migration discipline)
 - `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← P4 (policy-as-code)
 - `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← P10 (compliance posture truth)
 - `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` ← P7 (audit subject identity)
 - `domains/devops/ci-cd.md` ← P5 (policy as a pipeline gate)
 - `domains/devops/first-principles.md` ← P4 (policy as configuration-as-code)
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
 # Policy as Code — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P4
 > (Policy is Code) and P5 (Policy is Evaluated as a Gate). Referenced
 > by `audit-logs.md` (policy decisions are audited) and `evidence.md`
 > (policy decisions are evidence). Framework-agnostic per D-024.
 ## Policy is Code (P4 Policy is Code)
 - Compliance policy is expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable
  code — not in spreadsheets, prose documents, or tribal knowledge.
  Policy in a spreadsheet is untestable, unreviewable, and
  undeployable; it is a wishlist, not a control.
 - Policy-as-code inherits the disciplines of
  `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent`: declarative
  intent, version control, review before merge, plan before apply.
  A compliance rule that is not executable is a rule that cannot be
  enforced, which is a rule that does not exist.
 - Policy code is tested like any other code: unit tests for the rule
  logic (given an input, the rule allows or denies as expected),
  integration tests for the gate (the rule fires at the right point
  in the pipeline), and versioning for the policy itself (a policy
  change is a reviewed, merged, deployed change).
 ## Policy is Evaluated as a Gate (P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate)
 - Policy violations block **before** the action, not after the
  audit. Enforcement happens at:
  - **Admission time** — a kubernetes admission webhook denies a
    non-compliant resource before it is created
    (`domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`).
  - **Pipeline time** — a CI/CD gate denies a non-compliant change
    before it merges (`domains/devops/ci-cd.md`).
  - **Provisioning time** — an IaC plan gate denies a non-compliant
    resource before `apply` (`domains/infrastructure-as-code/`).
 - A policy that logs violations but does not block the action is a
  postcard, not a gate. Detection is not enforcement. A logged
  violation that the actor could ignore is a P5 violation — the
  policy exists, but the system is not compliant by construction.
 - The gate is the contract. The policy author writes the rule; the
  gate operator wires the rule into the enforcement point; the
  auditor verifies the gate fired. All three are auditable
  (`audit-logs.md`).
 ## Engine Comparison (IDEATE-23)
 | Engine | Policy Language | Evaluation Gate | Ecosystem | Notes |
 |--------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------|-------|
 | **OPA / Rego** | Rego (declarative, set-based, Datalog-inspired) | CI/CD, k8s admission (Gatekeeper), HTTP API, IaC plan (Terraform Sentinel-style), service mesh | Broadest ecosystem; CNCF graduated; library of reusable bundles | General-purpose; the default choice when the gate location varies |
 | **AWS Cedar** | Cedar (declarative, authorization-focused, schema-typed) | k8s admission (via Cedar-agent), application authorization, AVP (Verified Permissions) | AWS-native; tight schema typing; separates policy from entities | Authorization-focused; strong where the policy is "who can do what on which resource" |
 | **HashiCorp Sentinel** | Sentinel (declarative, restricted, policy-focused) | Terraform / TFE plan gate, Nomad, Vault | HashiCorp ecosystem; embedded in Terraform Enterprise / HCP | IaC-plan-gate native; the enforcement point is the `plan` output |
 | **Kyverno** | Kyverno (YAML-declarative, k8s-native, no new DSL) | k8s admission (native), cluster-wide policy reports | Kubernetes-native; no separate language — policy is a CRD | k8s-cluster-gate native; the choice when the gate is admission and the team prefers YAML over a DSL |
 - None is advocated over the others. The choice is (a) where the
  gate fires, (b) the team's tolerance for a new policy language,
  and (c) ecosystem fit. All four satisfy P4/P5 when wired
  correctly.
 - A gate is a gate regardless of engine: the rule is declarative,
  the evaluation is pre-action, and the decision is allow-or-deny.
  The engine difference is language and enforcement-point fit, not
  correctness.
 ## Policy Testing
 - Policy code is unit-tested like any other code. A test asserts
  that a given input produces the expected decision (allow / deny /
  warn). The test is versioned with the policy; a policy change
  with no test change is a red flag.
  ```
  // illustrative Rego policy + test
  // policy: deny containers running as root
  package k8s.admission
  deny[msg] {
    input.kind == "Pod"
    c := input.spec.containers[_]
    not c.securityContext.runAsNonRoot
    msg := sprintf("container %s must set runAsNonRoot", [c.name])
  }
  // test (Rego unit test)
  package k8s.admission
  test_deny_root_container {
    some msg in deny with input as {
      "kind": "Pod",
      "spec": { "containers": [ { "name": "app", "securityContext": {} } ] }
    }
    msg == "container app must set runAsNonRoot"
  }
  ```
 - Integration tests assert the gate fires: a non-compliant resource
  submitted to the admission endpoint is denied; a compliant one is
  allowed. The integration test runs against the real gate, not a
  mock, because the gate wiring is half the contract.
 ## Policy Versioning
 - Policy is versioned in git. A policy change is a reviewed, merged,
  deployed change — the same discipline as application code. A
  policy that is edited in production without review is a P4
  violation: the policy is code, but it is being treated as config.
 - A policy change can break existing workloads (a new deny rule
  blocks a previously-allowed resource). The rollout is staged:
  warn-only mode first (log violations, do not block), then enforce
  mode after the violation count is zero. This is the policy
  analogue of `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery`.
 ## What Violates Policy-as-Code Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | A compliance rule in a spreadsheet | P4 Policy is Code |
 | A policy that logs violations but does not block the action | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
 | A policy edited in production without review | P4 Policy is Code |
 | A policy with no unit tests for the rule logic | P4 Policy is Code |
 | A gate wired with a mock instead of the real engine | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
 | A new deny rule enforced without a warn-only rollout | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
 | A policy in prose ("the team should not use root containers") | P4 Policy is Code |
 | A policy decision with no audit record | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` — policy-as-
  code inherits declarative intent, versioning, and plan-before-
  apply from IaC.
 - `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` — k8s admission is a primary
  enforcement gate; Kyverno and OPA Gatekeeper wire into it.
 - `domains/devops/ci-cd.md` — CI/CD is a pipeline-time enforcement
  gate; a policy step blocks a non-compliant change before merge.
 - `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — every policy decision (allow
  / deny) is an audited significant action.
 - `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — policy decisions and the
  policy code itself are evidence of enforcement posture.
 - `domains/security/authorization.md` — Cedar's authorization-
  focused policy overlaps with authz; the split is that authz is
  the runtime decision, policy-as-code is the reviewed rule that
  drives it.
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
 # Internationalization (i18n) — First Principles
 > Grounded in Unicode ICU + CLDR, W3C i18n WG, BCP 47 / RFC 5646,
 > ICU MessageFormat / FormatJS / i18next / Mozilla Fluent, the
 > JavaScript `Intl` API, and WCAG 2.1 AA. The developer's language is
 > one locale among many, not the neutral form.
 ## 1. The Principles
 ### P1. Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default
 The developer's own language is one locale among many — it is not the
 "neutral" or "unlocalized" form of the product. Strings are extracted
 from day one, addressed by key, and routed through a locale resource
 layer even when only one locale is populated. Treating the source
 language as the default produces hidden concatenations, hardcoded
 grammar assumptions, and a translation debt that compounds until the
 first second locale arrives — at which point the fix is a rewrite, not
 a patch. The source locale is `en-US` (or whatever the team writes in);
 it is not `null`. This is the i18n angle on `domains/uiux/copywriting.md`:
 copy lives in resources, not in code.
 ### P2. Locale Identifiers are Standardized
 Use BCP 47 language tags (`en-US`, `ar-EG`, `zh-Hans-CN`, `pt-BR`).
 No ad-hoc locale codes, no two-letter-only hacks, no invented keys.
 The tag carries language, script (when needed), and region (when
 needed); it is the contract between the resource layer, the
 formatting layer, and the runtime. A locale identifier that is not
 BCP 47 is a key that cannot be resolved by any standard tool, which
 is a correctness violation. Cross `domains/data/schema-design.md`:
 locale identifiers are a data shape with a defined vocabulary.
 ### P3. Resources are External, Not Inline
 User-facing strings live in locale resource files (`.po`, JSON,
 Fluent `.ftl`, ICU Resource Bundle), never concatenated inline in
 code. Inline strings are invisible to the translation pipeline,
 unversionable as a unit, and untestable for completeness. String
 concatenation in code (`"Welcome, " + name + "!"`) is the cardinal
 violation: it bakes in source-language grammar and breaks for every
 locale with different word order. Resources are the boundary; code
 addresses strings by key, the resource layer resolves the key to the
 locale. This is the i18n angle on C4 Locality: strings and their
 locale-specific consequences live together in the resource, not
 scattered across code.
 ### P4. Plural and Gender are Parameterized
 Plural forms, gender, and select are expressed with ICU MessageFormat
 (or an equivalent parameterized formatter), never with `if (n == 1)`
 branching in code. Plural rules are locale-specific — English has
 one/other, Arabic has six categories, Russian has three — and a
 hand-rolled branch encodes exactly one locale's rules while pretending
 to be universal. The formatter is the contract; the resource carries
 the variants; the code passes the count and lets the formatter choose.
 A `if (n == 1)` plural is a C1 (Correctness) violation masquerading as
 a shortcut.
 ### P5. Formatting is Locale-Aware
 Dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, and relative time are
 formatted via ICU / CLDR / the JavaScript `Intl` API — never
 hand-rolled. A hand-rolled date formatter encodes one locale's
 conventions and silently produces wrong output for every other locale
 (mm/dd/yyyy vs dd/mm/yyyy is the canonical failure). CLDR is the
 source of truth for locale data; `Intl` is the runtime that exposes
 it. Formatting correctness is observable: a misformatted date is a
 wrong answer in the user's locale, even if it is "right" in the
 developer's. Cross `domains/api/error-responses.md` for localized
 error messages at API boundaries.
 ### P6. Text Direction is a Layout Primitive
 RTL and bidi are first-class layout concerns, not a CSS afterthought.
 Logical CSS properties (`margin-inline-start`, `padding-block-end`,
 `inset-inline-end`) over physical (`margin-left`, `padding-top`). The
 `dir` attribute is set on the document and on subtrees; the bidi
 algorithm (UAX #9) handles inline reordering. A layout that assumes
 LTR is a layout that is wrong for `ar`, `he`, `fa`, `ur`, and any
 RTL-mixed context. Text direction is not a skin — it is a structural
 property of the layout, and fixing it late is a rewrite. This is the
 i18n angle on `domains/uiux/accessibility.md`: RTL support is an
 accessibility concern for non-Latin-script users.
 ### P7. Layout Accommodates Expansion
 Translated text expands and contracts — German is ~30% longer than
 English, Japanese often shorter, RTL mirroring shifts every visual
 anchor. Layouts are flexible: no fixed pixel widths for text, no
 truncation without an ellipsis-and-title strategy, no
 `white-space: nowrap` on translatable strings. A layout that breaks
 on a 30% expansion is a layout that is wrong for most of the world's
 locales. Designing for the worst-case expansion up front is cheaper
 than reworking every screen when the first long-form locale ships.
 ### P8. Pseudo-Locales Test Early
 Test with pseudo-locales (accented, lengthened, RTL-mirrored, brack-
 enclosed) before real translations arrive. A pseudo-locale run
 surfaces hardcoded strings, layout overflow, broken concatenation,
 and LTR assumptions while the fix is still cheap — the translator
 hasn't been paid yet, and the string freeze hasn't happened. Finding
 these bugs after real translation is a C5 (Reversibility) violation:
 the cost of undoing is now a re-translation. Cross
 `domains/testing/fixtures.md` and `domains/testing/pyramid.md` for
 where pseudo-locales sit in the testing pyramid.
 ### P9. Images and Icons are Cultural
 Icons, colors, gestures, and imagery are locale-sensitive. A
 mailbox icon means "email" in the US and "mail" in Japan — but a
 green checkmark means "correct" in the West and "incorrect" in some
 East Asian contexts. A thumbs-up is positive in much of the world
 and an insult in parts of the Middle East. Avoid locale-bound symbols
 as universal; parameterize imagery per locale where the symbol is not
 globally neutral. Icons are not a universal language; they are a
 locale with a picture. This is a C2 (Clarity) concern: an icon whose
 meaning changes by locale is unclear to the reader it was not drawn
 for.
 ### P10. Translation is Reversible and Versioned
 Resource files are versioned alongside code; a bad translation is a
 rollback, not a hot-patch. Every locale resource has a history
 (what shipped when), a provenance (which translator / which service),
 and a rollback path. A translation that breaks the UI is reverted to
 the prior resource version, the same way a code regression is
 reverted to the prior commit. Translations without version history
 are anecdote, not artifact — you cannot tell what changed, when, or
 why. This is the i18n angle on C5 Reversibility applied to the
 resource layer.
 ## 2. Core Principle Trace
 Each i18n P-rule derives from one or more core C-rules (C1–C8). The
 matrix extension lands in P4 of the v0.3 plan; the traces below are
 authoritative.
 | P-rule | Core | Why |
 |--------|------|-----|
 | P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default | C2, C1 | Clarity of locale intent; correctness of treating source as one-of-many |
 | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized | C2, C6 | Clarity of a standard vocabulary; composability with standard tools |
 | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline | C4, C6 | Locality of strings and their locale consequences; composability of the resource layer |
 | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized | C1, C6 | Correctness of locale-specific plural rules; composability of the formatter contract |
 | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware | C1, C7 | Correctness of formatted output; observability of format correctness |
 | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive | C1, C4 | Correctness of layout for RTL; locality of direction with the text it governs |
 | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion | C8, C3 | Economy of rework; simplicity of flexible layouts over per-locale overrides |
 | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early | C7, C5 | Observability of i18n defects early; reversibility of fixing before translation |
 | P9 Images and Icons are Cultural | C1, C2 | Correctness of locale-appropriate symbols; clarity of meaning across locales |
 | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned | C5 | Reversibility of the resource layer |
 ## 3. What Violates These Principles
 | Violation | Principle Breached |
 |-----------|-------------------|
 | A user-facing string hardcoded in source | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | `"Welcome, " + name + "!"` string concatenation | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | `if (n == 1) { return "item"; } else { return "items"; }` | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
 | A locale code like `en_us` or `english` instead of `en-US` | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
 | A hand-rolled date formatter (`getMonth() + 1 + "/" + getDay()`) | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
 | `margin-left: 10px` on a translatable layout | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | A fixed-width text container that overflows on German | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion |
 | First i18n test runs against real translations, not pseudo-locales | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early |
 | A thumbs-up icon shipped as universally positive | P9 Images and Icons are Cultural |
 | Resource files with no git history or no rollback path | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned |
 | The source language treated as the "unlocalized" default | P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default |
 ## 4. Relationship to Other Domains
 i18n is the locale-awareness layer that `domains/uiux/` consumes and
 that `domains/api/` surfaces at boundaries. It borrows the testing
 discipline of `domains/testing/` and the data-shape discipline of
 `domains/data/`. Cross-links are one-directional (per D-026 extended):
 - `domains/uiux/copywriting.md` ← P1, P3 (strings live in resources)
 - `domains/uiux/accessibility.md` ← P6 (RTL is an a11y concern for non-Latin users)
 - `domains/uiux/components.md` ← P6, P7 (layout primitives that survive direction and expansion)
 - `domains/api/error-responses.md` ← P5 (localized error messages)
 - `domains/data/schema-design.md` ← P2, P3 (locale data shapes)
 - `domains/testing/fixtures.md` ← P8 (pseudo-locale fixtures)
 - `domains/testing/pyramid.md` ← P8 (pseudo-locale tier mapping)
 - `domains/testing/first-principles.md` ← P8 (testing discipline for locale)
@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
 # Formatting — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P2 (Locale
 > Identifiers Standardized), P4 (Plural/Gender Parameterized), and P5
 > (Formatting is Locale-Aware). Referenced by `locale-resources.md`
 > (the formatter resolves the messages) and `testing-i18n.md` (the
 > formatted output is what snapshots assert).
 ## Formatting is Locale-Aware (P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware)
 - Dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, and relative time are
  formatted via ICU / CLDR / the JavaScript `Intl` API — never
  hand-rolled. CLDR is the source of truth for locale data; `Intl`
  is the runtime that exposes it.
 - A hand-rolled formatter encodes one locale's conventions and
  silently produces wrong output for every other locale. The
  canonical failure is date format: `mm/dd/yyyy` (US) vs
  `dd/mm/yyyy` (most of the world) vs `yyyy-mm-dd` (ISO, sortable).
  Picking one and calling it done is a correctness violation in
  every locale it is wrong for.
 ## BCP 47 Tags Drive Formatting (P2 Locale Identifiers Standardized)
 - Every formatter takes a BCP 47 locale tag. The tag is the contract
  between the resource layer and the formatting layer: the same tag
  that selects the resource selects the formatter.
 - A locale tag that is not BCP 47 cannot be resolved by `Intl`, ICU,
  or CLDR — the formatter returns the runtime default, which is the
  developer's locale, not the user's. This is why P2 is a
  prerequisite of P5: you cannot format for a locale you cannot name.
 ## The Intl Surface (ICU/CLDR in the Browser and Node)
 | API | Formats | Notes |
 |-----|---------|-------|
 | `Intl.DateTimeFormat` | Dates, times, date+time, time zones | Calendar (`buddhist`, `hebrew`, `islamic`), numbering system (`arab`, `hanidec`) via locale tag extensions |
 | `Intl.NumberFormat` | Numbers, currencies, units, percent | Notation (`compact`, `scientific`), grouping, sign display |
 | `Intl.RelativeTimeFormat` | "3 days ago", "in 2 months" | Locale-specific phrasing; numeric vs auto |
 | `Intl.PluralRules` | Plural category for a count | `one`, `few`, `many`, `other`, `zero`, `two` per CLDR — the engine ICU MessageFormat uses |
 | `Intl.ListFormat` | "a, b, and c" | Conjunction / disjunction / unit lists, locale-specific separators |
 | `Intl.Collator` | Locale-aware string sorting | Strength (`base`, `accent`, `case`); numeric collation |
 - All of these are built on ICU/CLDR; they are the runtime baseline.
  Use them. A `moment.js`-style hand-rolled format string
  (`"MM/DD/YYYY"`) is a relic of the pre-`Intl` era and a P5
  violation in any locale-aware code path.
 ## Dates and Times
 ```
 // Correct — Intl, locale-aware
 new Intl.DateTimeFormat("ar-EG", {
  dateStyle: "full",
  timeStyle: "short",
 }).format(new Date());
 // "الأربعاء، ٧ نوفمبر ٢٠٢٤، ٣:١٥ م"
 // Wrong — hand-rolled, source-locale only
 const d = new Date();
 const s = (d.getMonth() + 1) + "/" + d.getDate() + "/" + d.getFullYear();
 // "11/7/2024" — meaningless in most locales
 ```
 - Time zones are not locales. A locale tells you *how to format* a
  timestamp; a time zone tells you *what instant* it refers to. Do
  not derive one from the other (`ar-EG` is not a time zone).
  Format with the user's locale; render in the user's time zone;
  store in UTC.
 ## Numbers, Currencies, Units
 ```
 new Intl.NumberFormat("de-DE", { style: "currency", currency: "EUR" })
  .format(1234.56); // "1.234,56 €"
 new Intl.NumberFormat("ar-EG", { style: "currency", currency: "EGP" })
  .format(1234.56); // "١٬٢٣٤٫٥٦ ج.م.‏"
 new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US", { style: "unit", unit: "kilometer-per-hour" })
  .format(100); // "100 km/h"
 ```
 - The currency code (`EUR`, `EGP`, `USD`) is ISO 4217; the locale
  determines the symbol, grouping, and placement. A hand-rolled
  `"$" + amount` is wrong for `de-DE` (symbol, grouping, placement
  all differ).
 ## Plural Rules (P4 Plural/Gender Parameterized)
 - `Intl.PluralRules` returns the CLDR plural category for a count in
  a given locale. ICU MessageFormat uses this category to select the
  variant from the resource (`locale-resources.md`).
 - Never branch on the raw count in code. The count goes to the
  formatter; the formatter consults `PluralRules` for the locale;
  the resource carries the variant for that category.
  ```
  // ICU MessageFormat (FormatJS)
  new Intl.MessageFormat(
    "{count, plural, one {# item} other {# items}}",
    "en-US"
  ).format({ count: 1 }); // "1 item"
  // ar-EG — six categories; the code is identical, only the
  // resource differs.
  ```
 ## Gender and Select
 - ICU MessageFormat also supports `{gender, select, male {...} female {...} other {...}}`
  for gendered agreement and `{case, select, ...}` for general
  disjunction. These live in the resource, not in code branches.
 - A `switch (gender)` in code that picks a string is the same
  violation as `if (n == 1)`: it encodes one locale's grammar in
  code and breaks for every locale with different agreement rules.
 ## What Violates Formatting Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | `getMonth() + 1 + "/" + getDay()` hand-rolled date | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
 | `"$" + amount` hand-rolled currency | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
 | `if (n === 1) "item" else "items"` plural branch | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
 | `moment("MM/DD/YYYY")` format string in locale-aware code | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
 | Deriving time zone from locale tag | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
 | A non-BCP-47 tag passed to `Intl` (silently falls back) | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
 | `switch (gender)` selecting strings in code | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
 | Storing timestamps in local time, not UTC | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/api/error-responses.md` — API error messages are
  formatted for the requesting locale; the error code is stable, the
  message is locale-formatted.
 - `domains/data/schema-design.md` — locale identifiers, currency
  codes, and time zones are data contracts; treat them as schema
  (`en-US`, `EUR`, `UTC`), not free text.
 - `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — the resource layer carries
  the parameterized messages this formatter resolves.
 - `domains/testing/fixtures.md` — formatted output per locale is the
  fixture; snapshot tests assert against it.
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
 # Locale Resources — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P1 (Source
 > Language is a Locale), P2 (Locale Identifiers Standardized), P3
 > (Resources External, Not Inline), P4 (Plural/Gender Parameterized),
 > and P10 (Translation Reversible and Versioned). Referenced by
 > `formatting.md` (strings the formatter resolves) and
 > `rtl-bidi.md` (the `dir` the resource layer carries).
 ## Resources are the Boundary (P3 Resources are External, Not Inline)
 - User-facing strings live in locale resource files, addressed by
  key. Code references a key; the resource layer resolves the key to
  the active locale. The source language is itself a locale
  (`en-US`), not a fallback baked into code.
 - String concatenation in code (`"Welcome, " + name + "!"`) is the
  cardinal violation: it bakes in source-language word order and
  breaks for every locale with different grammar. Replace every
  concatenation with a parameterized message:
  `t("welcome", { name })`.
 - The resource is the single place a string lives. Editing a string
  in code instead of the resource is a locality violation (C4): the
  string and its locale consequences now live apart.
 ## Resource File Formats
 | Format | Shape | When | Notes |
 |--------|-------|------|-------|
 | `.po` / `.pot` | gettext; msgid → msgstr, plural headers | Server-side, GNU ecosystem, PHP/Python/C | Mature tooling (`xgettext`, `msgmerge`); supports plural categories via header |
 | JSON (flat or namespaced) | `{ "key": "value" }` per locale | JS/web, i18next, FormatJS | Simple, machine-readable, but no native plural support — wrap with ICU MessageFormat |
 | Fluent `.ftl` | Mozilla FTL; asymmetric, resolver-driven | Browser-grade l10n, asymmetric translations | One message can resolve differently per locale without code changes; supports attributes, selectors |
 | ICU Resource Bundle | ICU binary/text resources | ICU-native, JVM, C++ | Tightest integration with ICU formatting/CLDR; steeper tooling |
 - None is advocated over the others. The choice is ecosystem fit,
  not correctness. All four satisfy P3/P4 when used as the boundary.
 - A custom format (a hand-rolled `.csv` of strings) is a violation:
  it is unsupported by standard tooling, has no plural grammar, and
  cannot compose with `formatting.md`'s ICU layer.
 ## Key Naming and Namespaces (P2 Locale Identifiers Standardized)
 - Locale identifiers are BCP 47 tags (`en-US`, `ar-EG`, `zh-Hans-CN`).
  No ad-hoc codes. The resource file is named for its locale:
  `en-US.json`, `ar-EG.po`, `ftl/ar-EG/main.ftl`.
 - Message keys are stable, semantic, and structured — not prose.
  `checkout.cart.item_count` not `"You have 3 items in your cart"`.
  A key that is the source string (`t("You have items")`) breaks the
  moment the source copy is edited; the key must outlive the copy.
 - Namespaces segment by surface (`checkout.*`, `errors.*`, `onboarding.*`)
  so that a locale can be loaded incrementally and so that key
  collisions across surfaces are impossible. A flat namespace with
  thousands of keys is a C2 (Clarity) violation waiting to happen.
 ## Fallback Chains
 - The fallback chain is explicit: requested locale → language-only
  (`en` from `en-GB`) → default locale → key itself (last resort).
  The default locale is declared once, not re-derived in every call
  site.
 - A missing key in the requested locale falling back silently to the
  source locale is a P3 violation: the user is silently shown the
  developer's locale, which is not the locale they asked for. Missing
  keys must be observable (see `testing-i18n.md`).
 - Fallback is a property of the resource layer, not of individual
  components. A component that re-implements fallback is duplicating
  a contract (C6 Composability violation).
 ## Plural and Gender in Resources (P4 Plural/Gender Parameterized)
 - Plural variants live in the resource, selected by the formatter,
  parameterized by the count. The code passes the count; the resource
  carries the variants; the formatter picks the right one per the
  locale's CLDR plural rules.
  ```
  // JSON + ICU MessageFormat (FormatJS / i18next)
  {
    "cart.item_count": "{count, plural, one {# item} other {# items}}"
  }
  // ar-EG.json — six plural categories per CLDR
  {
    "cart.item_count": "{count, plural, zero {لا عناصر} one {عنصر واحد} two {عنصران} few {# عناصر} many {# عنصرًا} other {# عنصر}}"
  }
  ```
 - `if (n == 1)` branching in code is a violation regardless of
  language. Arabic has six plural categories; Russian has three;
  English has two. A two-branch `if` encodes exactly one locale's
  rules and is wrong for every other.
 ## Extraction Tooling (P1, P3)
 - Strings are extracted mechanically (e.g. `xgettext`, `i18next-
  parser`, FormatJS babel plugin), not by hand-tagging. Mechanical
  extraction produces a `.pot` template that translators work from;
  the template is regenerated on every build.
 - A string that cannot be extracted (built at runtime from
  fragments) is a P3 violation: it is invisible to the pipeline. If
  the extractor cannot see it, neither can the translator.
 - The extracted template is versioned (`P10`): the diff between
  templates is the change in translatable surface. A template that
  is not committed is a contract that is not reviewable.
 ## Versioning and Rollback (P10 Translation Reversible and Versioned)
 - Resource files are committed to git alongside code. A bad
  translation is a `git revert` of the resource, not a hot-patch over
  the translator's work. Every locale resource has history,
  provenance (which translator / which service produced which
  commit), and a rollback path.
 - A locale resource that is generated by a translation service and
  committed without review is a P10 violation: the resource is
  versioned but the provenance is opaque. Review the diff the same
  way you review a code diff.
 ## What Violates Locale-Resource Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | `t("You have " + n + " items")` concatenation | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | A custom `.csv` string store instead of a standard format | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | Locale file named `english.json` not `en-US.json` | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
 | `if (n == 1) { t("item") } else { t("items") }` in code | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
 | A key equal to the source string (`t("Welcome back")`) | P2 / P10 — keys must outlive copy |
 | Silent fallback to the source locale with no signal | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | A runtime-built string the extractor cannot see | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | Resource files committed by a bot with no human review | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/uiux/copywriting.md` — copy lives in resources; UI
  microcopy is the source content the resource layer carries.
 - `domains/api/error-responses.md` — API error messages are locale-
  resource keys resolved at the boundary, not inline strings.
 - `domains/data/schema-design.md` — locale identifiers and resource
  shapes are a data contract; treat them as schema.
 - `domains/i18n/formatting.md` — the formatter resolves the
  parameterized message this layer produces.
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
 # RTL and Bidi — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P6 (Text
 > Direction is a Layout Primitive) and P7 (Layout Accommodates
 > Expansion). Referenced by `testing-i18n.md` (RTL coverage is an
 > e2e tier). Grounded in W3C i18n bidi authoring, UAX #9, and
 > `domains/uiux/accessibility.md`.
 ## Text Direction is a Layout Primitive (P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive)
 - RTL and bidi are first-class layout concerns, not a CSS
  afterthought. The layout is designed for both directions from the
  first commit, not retrofitted when an RTL locale ships.
 - Logical CSS properties over physical properties, always. The
  browser resolves logical → physical from the `dir` attribute; the
  code never has to.
  | Physical (LTR-only) | Logical (dir-aware) | Resolves to in RTL |
  |---------------------|---------------------|--------------------|
  | `margin-left` | `margin-inline-start` | `margin-right` |
  | `margin-right` | `margin-inline-end` | `margin-left` |
  | `padding-left` | `padding-inline-start` | `padding-right` |
  | `left: 0` | `inset-inline-start: 0` | `right: 0` |
  | `text-align: left` | `text-align: start` | `text-align: right` |
  | `float: left` | use flexbox/grid + `inline-start` where supported | mirrored |
 - The `dir` attribute is set on the document root (`<html dir="rtl">`)
  and on subtrees whose direction differs from the document
  (`<span dir="ltr">` for an embedded Latin run). `dir` is the
  contract the bidi algorithm (UAX #9) reads; do not fake direction
  with `text-align` alone.
 ## The Bidi Algorithm (UAX #9)
 - The Unicode bidi algorithm resolves inline reordering of mixed-
  direction runs. The browser applies it; the author's job is to
  mark direction correctly, not to reorder by hand.
 - A string like `"The price is 15 USD"` in an RTL context renders
  with the Latin run `"15 USD"` in LTR within the RTL line — the
  algorithm handles it *if* the container's `dir` is set. Without
  `dir`, numbers and Latin fragments drift to the wrong edge.
 - `dir="auto"` on a container infers direction from the first strong
  directional character of its content — useful for user-generated
  content whose direction is unknown. `dir="auto"` is not a
  replacement for `dir="rtl"` on a known-RTL document.
 ## Mirroring (Icons, Controls, Diagrams)
 - Direction-aware icons mirror in RTL: a "back" arrow pointing left
  in LTR points right in RTL. A "refresh" circular arrow does not
  mirror. The rule: icons that imply direction mirror; icons that
  imply time or rotation do not.
 - Use `[dir="rtl"]` selectors or logical icon variants — never
  `transform: scaleX(-1)` as a one-off hack scattered across
  components. Centralize the mirroring rule (a token, a component
  prop) so it is auditable.
 - Numbers do not mirror. `"15 USD"` in an RTL line is still
  `"15 USD"` left-to-right inside the bidi run; mirroring it to
  `"DSU 51"` is a correctness violation.
 - Diagrams and flowcharts: a left-to-right process flow in LTR is a
  right-to-left flow in RTL. Decide per diagram whether the flow
  mirrors (most do) or is direction-neutral (some scientific
  schematics).
 ## Layout Accommodates Expansion (P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion)
 - Translated text expands. German is ~30% longer than English;
  Japanese is often shorter but taller; RTL mirroring shifts every
  visual anchor. Layouts are flexible:
  - No fixed pixel widths on translatable text containers.
  - No `white-space: nowrap` on translatable strings.
  - No `text-overflow: ellipsis` without a `title` carrying the full
    string.
  - Buttons sized to fit their longest locale variant, not the
    source.
 - A layout that breaks at +30% width is a layout that is wrong for
  most of the world's locales. Designing for the worst case up front
  is cheaper than reworking every screen when the first long-form
  locale ships.
 ## Common Pitfalls
 | Pitfall | Why it breaks | Fix |
 |---------|---------------|-----|
 | `margin-left` everywhere | In RTL the start is the right; `margin-left` leaves the right side unstyled | `margin-inline-start` |
 | `text-align: left` for "default" alignment | In RTL the default is right; `left` pins content to the wrong edge | `text-align: start` |
 | Icons hardcoded to LTR orientation | "Back" arrow points the wrong way in RTL | Mirror direction-implying icons via `[dir="rtl"]` |
 | Numbers mirrored with the layout | Numbers are LTR inside RTL; mirroring produces garbage | Leave number runs LTR; the bidi algorithm handles embedding |
 | Fixed `width: 120px` on a button | German button label overflows and truncates | `min-width` + `max-width` + flex; let content size |
 | `position: absolute; left: 0` | Pins to the physical left in both directions | `inset-inline-start: 0` |
 | Fake direction with `text-align` only | The bidi algorithm reads `dir`, not `text-align`; mixed runs reorder wrong | Set `dir` on the container |
 ## What Violates RTL/Bidi Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | A layout with no `dir` attribute, assuming LTR | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | `margin-left` / `left: 0` / `text-align: left` throughout | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | A "back" arrow that points left in the RTL build | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | Numbers mirrored to read right-to-left | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | `width: 100px` on a text container that overflows in German | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion |
 | `white-space: nowrap` on a translated label | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion |
 | `dir` faked with `text-align` and no `dir` attribute | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | No RTL build until the first RTL locale ships | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/uiux/accessibility.md` — RTL support is an accessibility
  concern for non-Latin-script users; WCAG 2.1 AA requires that
  direction be set correctly.
 - `domains/uiux/components.md` — components are built with logical
  properties so they survive direction and expansion without per-
  locale overrides.
 - `domains/i18n/testing-i18n.md` — RTL coverage is an e2e-tier
  test; pseudo-locale mirroring surfaces direction bugs early.
 - `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — the `dir` is part of the
  locale's metadata, carried alongside the resource bundle.
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
 # Testing i18n — Derived Rules
 > Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P8
 > (Pseudo-Locales Test Early) and the testing-discipline angle on
 > P3 (Resources External), P5 (Formatting Locale-Aware), P6 (Text
 > Direction), and P10 (Translation Versioned). Referenced by
 > `locale-resources.md` (missing-key detection) and `rtl-bidi.md`
 > (RTL coverage tier).
 ## Pseudo-Locales Test Early (P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early)
 - A pseudo-locale is a synthetic locale that transforms the source
  strings to surface i18n defects before real translations arrive.
  Three transforms cover the three defect classes:
  | Pseudo-locale | Transform | Surfaces |
  |---------------|-----------|----------|
  | `en-XA` (accented) | `Wêlcômê tô thê çhêckôût` | Strings not extracted (raw source appears), encoding bugs |
  | `en-XB` (lengthened / "long") | `Wᴇʟᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋᴏᴜᴛ──────` (~30% longer, bracketed) | Layout overflow, fixed widths, truncation |
  | `en-XC` (RTL-mirrored) | Source rendered with `dir="rtl"` and a Latin-in-RTL run | LTR-only layout assumptions, physical CSS properties |
 - Pseudo-locale tests are cheap: they run against source strings, no
  translator involved, no string freeze required. A failing pseudo-
  locale run is a bug found at the cheapest possible point in the
  pipeline. Finding the same bug after real translation is a C5
  (Reversibility) violation: the fix now costs a re-translation.
 ## Pseudo-Locale → Testing Pyramid Mapping (IDEATE-28)
 - The testing pyramid (`domains/testing/pyramid.md`) has three tiers;
  i18n tests map to each tier with a distinct signal. The mapping is
  deliberate: each tier catches a different class of defect, and
  skipping a tier leaves a blind spot.
  | Pyramid Tier | i18n Test | Defect Caught | Tooling Shape |
  |--------------|-----------|---------------|---------------|
  | **Unit** | Missing-key detection | A key referenced in code but absent from the resource bundle; a key present in the source locale but missing from a target locale | Static scan over the resource bundle + code AST; runs per file, no runtime |
  | **Integration** | Snapshot per locale | Formatted output for a fixture input differs across locales in a way that breaks the contract (wrong plural, wrong date, overflow) | Render a known fixture through the formatter per locale; snapshot-diff against the recorded baseline |
  | **e2e** | RTL coverage | The app renders and is navigable in `dir="rtl"`; no layout overflow, no off-screen controls, no LTR-pinned anchors | Browser-driven run against the `en-XC` pseudo-locale (or a real RTL locale); assert on layout, not just text |
 - Unit is the broad base (fast, runs on every commit), e2e is the
  narrow top (slow, runs on PR merge). Integration sits between.
  This mirrors `domains/testing/pyramid.md` exactly — i18n is not a
  special case; it is a domain that uses the same tiers.
 ## Unit Tier — Missing-Key Detection (P3 Resources External)
 - A static scan compares the set of keys referenced in code against
  the keys present in each locale bundle. A key in code but not in
  `en-US` is a P3 violation (the string is not in the resource
  layer). A key in `en-US` but not in `ar-EG` is a coverage gap —
  the missing-key scan flags it before the locale ships.
 - Missing keys fail the build, not the runtime. A missing key that
  surfaces only when a user switches locale is a defect found in
  production, which is the most expensive place to find it.
  ```
  // tool output (illustrative)
  // missing-key scan
  [FAIL]  ar-EG: key "checkout.cart.item_count" referenced in code,
          absent from ar-EG.json
  [FAIL]  en-US: key "checkout.cart.total" referenced in Checkout.tsx:42,
          absent from en-US.json (not extracted)
  [PASS]  en-US, ar-EG, de-DE, zh-Hans-CN: all other keys present
  ```
 ## Integration Tier — Snapshot per Locale (P5 Formatting Locale-Aware)
 - For a fixed fixture input, render the formatted output per locale
  and snapshot it. A change in the snapshot is either an intended
  change (new CLDR data, new copy) or a regression.
 - The snapshot is per locale, not per format string. The same
  fixture (`{ count: 1, currency: "EUR", date: 2024-11-07 }`)
  produces different snapshots for `en-US`, `de-DE`, `ar-EG` — and
  that difference is the assertion. A locale whose snapshot matches
  the source locale's is a red flag: the formatter is not actually
  locale-aware.
  ```
  // snapshot — checkout.cart (fixture: count=1, currency=EUR, date=2024-11-07)
  // en-US
  "1 item · €1,234.56 · 11/7/2024"
  // de-DE
  "1 Artikel · 1.234,56 € · 07.11.2024"
  // ar-EG
  "عنصر واحد · ١٬٢٣٤٫٥٦ € · ٧/١١/٢٠٢٤"
  ```
 - Snapshots are reviewed, not rubber-stamped. A snapshot diff that
  changes the plural form for `ar-EG` is either a CLDR update (verify)
  or a regression (revert).
 ## e2e Tier — RTL Coverage (P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive)
 - A browser-driven run against `en-XC` (or a real RTL locale like
  `ar-EG`) asserts that the app is navigable in RTL: no overflow, no
  off-screen controls, no LTR-pinned anchors. The assertion is on
  layout, not on text — text correctness is the integration tier's
  job.
 - RTL e2e is the narrow top of the i18n pyramid: it is slow, it
  requires a browser, and it catches the defects the lower tiers
  cannot (the interaction of `dir` with the real layout engine). It
  runs on PR merge, not on every commit.
 ## Snapshot Discipline (P10 Translation Reversible and Versioned)
 - Snapshots are versioned in git. A snapshot that changes because of
  a real translation update is a committed diff, reviewed like a
  code change. A snapshot that changes because of a regression is a
  `git revert`.
 - A snapshot that is regenerated and committed without review is a
  P10 violation: the snapshot is versioned but the provenance is
  opaque. The same discipline applies to snapshots as to resources
  (`locale-resources.md`).
 ## What Violates i18n Testing Discipline
 | Violation | Principle |
 |-----------|-----------|
 | First i18n test runs against real translations, not pseudo-locales | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early |
 | No missing-key scan — gaps surface only at runtime in production | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
 | Snapshot per locale that matches the source locale's snapshot | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
 | No RTL e2e — "we'll test RTL when we ship an RTL locale" | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
 | Snapshots regenerated and committed without review | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned |
 | i18n tests only at e2e (no unit/integration tier) | pyramid inversion — `domains/testing/pyramid.md` |
 | Pseudo-locale run skipped because "it's not a real locale" | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early |
 ## Relationship to Other Domains
 - `domains/testing/pyramid.md` — the pseudo-locale → pyramid mapping
  mirrors this domain's unit / integration / e2e tiers exactly.
 - `domains/testing/fixtures.md` — locale fixtures (a fixed input
  rendered per locale) are the fixture shape for the integration
  tier.
 - `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — missing-key detection is the
  unit-tier scan over the resource bundle this doc defines.
 - `domains/i18n/formatting.md` — the integration-tier snapshot
  asserts against the formatter's output.
 - `domains/i18n/rtl-bidi.md` — the e2e tier exercises the layout
  rules this doc establishes.
 - `domains/uiux/accessibility.md` — RTL coverage is an a11y
  concern; an untested RTL build is an untested a11y surface.
@@ -6,14 +6,14 @@
 | Core Principle | Domains that derive from it | Count |
 |----------------|---------------------------|-------|
-| C1 Correctness | All 13 (v0.1: 11; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes) | Universal |
+| C1 Correctness | All 17 (v0.1: 11; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance) | Universal |
-| C2 Clarity | v0.1: uiux, api, data, testing, observability, errors, documentation, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 10 |
+| C2 Clarity | v0.1: uiux, api, data, testing, observability, errors, documentation, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance | 14 |
-| C3 Simplicity | v0.1: security, data, testing, performance, documentation, concurrency, devops | 7 |
+| C3 Simplicity | v0.1: security, data, testing, performance, documentation, concurrency, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code; v0.3: gitops-operators, i18n, compliance | 11 |
-| C4 Locality | v0.1: testing, concurrency; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 4 |
+| C4 Locality | v0.1: testing, concurrency; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, i18n | 6 |
-| C5 Reversibility | v0.1: api, data, uiux, concurrency, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 7 |
+| C5 Reversibility | v0.1: api, data, uiux, concurrency, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance | 11 |
-| C6 Composability | v0.1: api, security, observability, errors, documentation, concurrency; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 8 |
+| C6 Composability | v0.1: api, security, observability, errors, documentation, concurrency; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance | 12 |
-| C7 Observability | v0.1: api, data, testing, performance, observability, errors, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 9 |
+| C7 Observability | v0.1: api, data, testing, performance, observability, errors, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance | 13 |
-| C8 Economy | v0.1: security, testing, performance, observability, concurrency; v0.2: kubernetes | 6 |
+| C8 Economy | v0.1: security, testing, performance, observability, concurrency; v0.2: kubernetes; v0.3: gitops-operators, i18n, compliance | 9 |
 ## Interpretation
@@ -39,6 +39,10 @@
 | DevOps | C1, C2, C3, C5, C7 | Reproducibility + rollback |
 | Infrastructure as Code | C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 | Declarative + state + composition; broadest derivation alongside Concurrency |
 | Kubernetes | C1, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 | Declarative + reversibility + economy; broad derivation (7 C-rules) |
 | GitOps + Operators | C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 | Source-of-truth + reconciliation + pull-locality + least privilege; broadest derivation (8 C-rules, tied with i18n) |
 | AI / ML | C1, C2, C5, C6, C7 | Reproducibility + lineage + serving observability |
 | i18n | C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 | Locale + formatting + direction + reversibility; broadest derivation (8 C-rules) |
 | Compliance | C1, C2, C3, C5, C6, C7, C8 | Audit + policy-as-code + retention + posture |
 ## v0.2 Domain Coverage (per IDEATE-03 schema)
@@ -47,10 +51,21 @@
 | Infrastructure as Code | 10 | 4 (terraform, opentofu, state, modules) | ✓ | complete |
 | Kubernetes | 10 | 6 (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize) | ✓ | complete |
 ## v0.3 Domain Coverage (per IDEATE-03 schema)
 | Domain | P-count | Derived-doc-count | Manifest-listed | Status |
 |--------|---------|-------------------|-----------------|--------|
 | GitOps + Operators | 10 | 4 (argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery) | ✓ | complete |
 | AI / ML | 10 | 4 (data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift) | ✓ | complete |
 | i18n | 10 | 4 (locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n) | ✓ | complete |
 | Compliance | 10 | 4 (audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence) | ✓ | complete |
 ## Gaps and Notes
 - No domain derives from only one C-rule. The minimum is 4 (UI/UX: C1, C2, C3, C5, C7 — actually 5). Every domain is multi-rooted.
- **Concurrency**, **Infrastructure as Code**, and **Kubernetes** are tied for the broadest derivation (7 C-rules each) — these domains touch the most core concerns.
+- **Concurrency**, **Infrastructure as Code**, and **Kubernetes** are tied for the broadest derivation among v0.1/v0.2 platform domains (7 C-rules each) — these domains touch the most core concerns.
 - **GitOps + Operators** and **i18n** are tied for the single broadest-derivation domain overall (8 C-rules each: C1–C8). GitOps adds C4 (pull-credential locality) alongside its source-of-truth/reconciliation/least-privilege derivation; i18n touches correctness, clarity, simplicity, locality, reversibility, composability, observability, and economy (expansion accommodation). This is consistent with both domains' cross-cutting nature.
 - **UI/UX** and **API** are the most user-facing; they emphasize C2 (Clarity) heavily.
 - **Security** is the only domain with explicit non-tradeable declarations; this promotes 8 of its rules to C1-equivalent per `core/conflict-resolution.md` §6.
- **v0.2 expansion:** C4 (Locality) grew from 2 to 4 domains (added infrastructure-as-code state locality, kubernetes namespace blast-radius). C6 (Composability) grew from 6 to 8. The two new domains are broad-derivation domains (7 C-rules each), consistent with Concurrency's breadth.
+- **v0.2 expansion:** C4 (Locality) grew from 2 to 4 domains (added infrastructure-as-code state locality, kubernetes namespace blast-radius). C6 (Composability) grew from 6 to 8. The two new domains are broad-derivation domains (7 C-rules each), consistent with Concurrency's breadth.
 - **v0.3 expansion:** C3 (Simplicity) grew from 7 to 11 (added gitops-operators declarative simplicity, i18n flexible layout, compliance structural redaction). C4 (Locality) grew from 4 to 6 (added gitops-operators pull-credential locality, i18n resource/text-direction locality). C5 (Reversibility) grew from 7 to 11 (added all four v0.3 domains — gitops history, ai-ml reproducibility, i18n translation versioning, compliance append-only/retention). C6 (Composability) grew from 8 to 12. C7 (Observability) grew from 9 to 13 (added all four v0.3 domains — reconciliation, drift detection, format correctness, posture). C2 (Clarity) grew from 10 to 14. The v0.3 expansion broadens every non-universal C-rule's coverage, confirming the four new domains are cross-cutting and well-rooted.
@@ -205,8 +205,68 @@ C5=Reversibility · C6=Composability · C7=Observability · C8=Economy
 | P9 Config and Secrets Sep | C2   | Clarity of configuration              |
 | P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back | C5 | Reversibility of deploys            |
-## Coverage Summary (post-v0.2)
+## GitOps + Operators
- 13 domains (11 v0.1 + 2 v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes)
+| GitOps Principle           | Core | Why                                   |
- 130 domain principles total (110 v0.1 + 20 v0.2)
+|---------------------------|------|---------------------------------------|
 | P1 Git is the Source of Truth | C1, C5 | Correctness of source; reversibility via history |
 | P2 Declarative Over Imperative | C2, C3 | Clarity of intent; simplicity of expression |
 | P3 Pull, Don't Push        | C1, C4 | Correctness via security; locality of credentials |
 | P4 Continuous Reconciliation | C7, C1 | Observability of drift; correctness of converge loop |
 | P5 State is Immutable and Versioned | C5 | Reversibility through history |
 | P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge | C6, C2 | Composability of expertise; clarity of operations |
 | P7 Progressive Delivery is Reversible | C5, C1 | Reversibility of promotion; correctness of abort |
 | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand | C1, C7 | Correctness of source of truth; observability of drift |
 | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced | C7 | Observability of sync/rollout health |
 | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation | C1, C8 | Correctness via security; economy of trust |
 ## AI / ML
 | AI/ML Principle            | Core | Why                                   |
 |---------------------------|------|---------------------------------------|
 | P1 Reproducibility is the First Class | C1, C5 | Correctness of runs; reversibility of reproduction |
 | P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code | C5, C7 | Reversibility of data; observability of dataset lineage |
 | P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End | C7, C1 | Observability of predictions; correctness of provenance |
 | P4 Evaluation is Defined Before Training | C1, C2 | Correctness of metrics; clarity of thresholds |
 | P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts | C5, C6 | Reversibility of model rollbacks; composability of registry |
 | P6 Serving is Observable    | C7   | Observability of inference            |
 | P7 Drift is Expected and Detected | C7, C1 | Observability of drift; correctness of detection |
 | P8 Inference Inputs are Validated | C1 | Correctness at serving boundary      |
 | P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't | C6, C2 | Composability of steps; clarity of contracts |
 | P10 Rollback Includes the Model | C5 | Reversibility at the model layer     |
 ## i18n
 | i18n Principle             | Core | Why                                   |
 |---------------------------|------|---------------------------------------|
 | P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default | C2, C1 | Clarity; correctness of localization model |
 | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized | C2, C6 | Clarity; composability of BCP 47      |
 | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline | C4, C6 | Locality of strings; composability of resources |
 | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized | C1, C6 | Correctness across locales; composability of message format |
 | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware | C1, C7 | Correctness of formats; observability of format correctness |
 | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive | C1, C4 | Correctness of RTL/bidi; locality of direction |
 | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion | C8, C3 | Economy of rework; simplicity of flexible layout |
 | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early | C7, C5 | Observability of bugs early; reversibility of finding late |
 | P9 Images and Icons are Cultural | C1, C2 | Correctness; clarity of cultural meaning |
 | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned | C5 | Reversibility of localization changes |
 ## Compliance
 | Compliance Principle       | Core | Why                                   |
 |---------------------------|------|---------------------------------------|
 | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only | C1, C5 | Correctness of audit; reversibility of immutable record |
 | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged | C7, C1 | Observability of actions; correctness of audit set |
 | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage | C5, C8 | Reversibility of lifecycle; economy of storage |
 | P4 Policy is Code         | C6, C2 | Composability of policy; clarity of rules |
 | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate | C1, C5 | Correctness of enforcement; reversibility of block |
 | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously | C7, C3 | Observability of posture; simplicity of audit |
 | P7 Identity is Attributable | C1, C7 | Correctness of attribution; observability of subject |
 | P8 Subject Access is Honored | C1, C5 | Correctness of rights; reversibility of deletion/export |
 | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit | C1, C3 | Correctness via security; simplicity of structural redaction |
 | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable | C7, C1 | Observability of compliance; correctness of posture |
 ## Coverage Summary (post-v0.3)
 - 17 domains (11 v0.1 + 2 v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes; 4 v0.3: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance)
 - 170 domain principles total (110 v0.1 + 20 v0.2 + 40 v0.3)
 - Every domain P-rule traces to ≥1 core C-rule (C1–C8). No orphans.
@@ -147,6 +147,56 @@ If the task touches a domain, run that domain's checklist:
 - [ ] Rollout history retained; rollback tested (P10)
 - [ ] Namespaces used to bound blast radius; not `default` in prod (P6)
 ### If GitOps + Operators (see `domains/gitops-operators/`)
 - [ ] Desired state lives in git, not in the cluster (P1)
 - [ ] Configuration is declarative, not imperative scripts (P2)
 - [ ] Reconciliation is pull-based; no external push credentials into the cluster (P3)
 - [ ] Reconciliation loop runs continuously; drift auto-corrected (P4)
 - [ ] Every change is a commit; history is the audit/rollback path (P5)
 - [ ] Operational knowledge encoded as CRDs/controllers, not runbooks (P6)
 - [ ] Progressive delivery (canary/blue-green) has a tested abort/rollback path (P7)
 - [ ] No manual `kubectl apply`/`kubectl edit` on GitOps-managed resources (P8)
 - [ ] Sync failures, health degradation, and rollout stalls emit status + notifications (P9)
 - [ ] Controller credentials scoped to reconciled namespaces/resources; no cluster-admin GitOps robot (P10)
 ### If AI / ML (see `domains/ai-ml/`)
 - [ ] Scope check: this is engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT algorithm/model design (D-023) — reject algorithm-design content
 - [ ] Every training run is reproducible from pinned data + code + config + environment (P1)
 - [ ] Datasets, features, and splits are versioned artifacts with lineage; `git` alone is insufficient (P2)
 - [ ] Any deployed prediction traces back through model → training run → dataset → source (P3)
 - [ ] Metrics, splits, and thresholds declared a priori; no post-hoc metric cherry-picking (P4)
 - [ ] Models are pinned, immutable, registry-tracked artifacts; never "the latest" (P5)
 - [ ] Inference latency, throughput, input distributions, and prediction confidence are observed (P6)
 - [ ] Data drift, concept drift, and prediction drift are monitored; a drift signal is an incident (P7)
 - [ ] Inference inputs validated against the model's contract (schema, ranges, types); out-of-contract rejected (P8)
 - [ ] Training/serving flows are composable pipelines with explicit steps; notebooks not in production (P9)
 - [ ] Serving rollback restores the prior model artifact, not just the prior code (P10)
 ### If i18n (see `domains/i18n/`)
 - [ ] Source language treated as one locale among many, not the "neutral" default (P1)
 - [ ] Locale identifiers use BCP 47 tags; no ad-hoc locale codes (P2)
 - [ ] User-facing strings in locale resource files, not concatenated inline in code (P3)
 - [ ] Plural/gender/select use ICU MessageFormat (or equivalent); no `if (n == 1)` branching (P4)
 - [ ] Dates, times, numbers, currencies, units via ICU/CLDR/`Intl`; no hand-rolled formatters (P5)
 - [ ] RTL/bidi is a first-class layout concern; logical CSS properties (`start`/`end`) over physical (`left`/`right`) (P6)
 - [ ] Layouts accommodate translation expansion; no fixed pixel widths for text (P7)
 - [ ] Pseudo-locales (accented, lengthened, RTL-mirrored) used to test before real translations arrive (P8)
 - [ ] Icons, colors, and imagery reviewed for locale-sensitivity; no locale-bound symbols treated as universal (P9)
 - [ ] Resource files versioned; a bad translation is a rollback, not a hot-patch (P10)
 ### If Compliance (see `domains/compliance/`)
 - [ ] Scope check: framework-agnostic — no regulation-specific (GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2/PCI) content (D-024)
 - [ ] Audit records are immutable once written; deletion/mutation is itself an auditable incident (P1)
 - [ ] The set of auditable actions is defined a priori; "we forgot to log it" is a violation (P2)
 - [ ] Data lifetime is declared and enforced as policy; deletion at end-of-life is a feature (P3)
 - [ ] Compliance policy expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable code (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel), not spreadsheets/prose (P4)
 - [ ] Policy violations block before the action (admission/CI/CD-time), not after the audit (P5)
 - [ ] Evidence gathered as a byproduct of operation, not assembled manually at audit time (P6)
 - [ ] Every logged action traces to an authenticated principal; no shared/generic identities (P7)
 - [ ] Data-subject rights (access, export, deletion) are operations with defined contracts and audit trails (P8)
 - [ ] Audit logs do not leak secrets; redaction is structural, not opportunistic (P9)
 - [ ] System reports its own compliance state (drift from policy, open violations, retention status) (P10)
 ## Final Gate
 - [ ] Have I read the relevant domain's first-principles?
@@ -163,4 +163,65 @@ When you see a pattern listed here, it is a defect. Cite the principle it violat
 |--------------|----------|-----|
 | Orphaned P-rule (a domain principle with no matrix row) | matrix completeness, C6 | Breaks the conflict-resolution arbiter; the rule has no core trace |
 | Deployable example artifact (standalone `.tf`/`.yaml` under `examples/`) | PROJECT.md "no runtime code", D-025 | Violates the docs-only contract; examples must be `.md` with fenced code |
-| Unlisted v0.2 doc (new doc not added to MANIFEST) | manifest rule | Not part of the framework by definition |
+| Unlisted v0.2 doc (new doc not added to MANIFEST) | manifest rule | Not part of the framework by definition |
 ## v0.3 Chaos Anti-Patterns (from IDEATE-20, IDEATE-24, IDEATE-25, IDEATE-27)
 These are named, cross-cutting violations specific to the v0.3 domains. Reject on sight.
 | Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
 |--------------|----------|-----|
 | GitOps push-pattern (external CI pushes manifests to the cluster instead of an in-cluster agent pulling from git) | gitops P3 Pull, Don't Push; C1, C4 | Inverts the source-of-truth flow; requires push credentials into the cluster; breaks the reconciliation model (IDEATE-24, D-042) |
 | i18n LTR-only assumption (layout assumes left-to-right; no `dir` attribute, physical CSS properties only) | i18n P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive; C1, C4 | Disqualifying for RTL/Bidi users; locale-correctness violation (IDEATE-25, D-043) |
 | AI/ML orphan-model (a deployed prediction endpoint whose model has no lineage trace — no record of training run, dataset, or version) | ai-ml P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End; C7, C1 | Unreviewable, unrollbackable; the model is an unattributed artifact (IDEATE-27, D-045) |
 | Compliance mutable audit log (audit records can be edited or deleted by an operator) | compliance P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only; C1, C5 | Destroys the audit trail; the audit log's value is immutability — mutation is itself an incident |
 ### v0.3 Deployable Artifact Types (IDEATE-20, D-020)
 The following standalone file types are forbidden under `examples/` and elsewhere in the framework. Examples are `.md` files with fenced code only.
 | Forbidden standalone artifact | Belongs in | Why |
 |-------------------------------|-----------|-----|
 | `.po` / `.pot` resource files | fenced code in `examples/good/`/`examples/bad/*.md` | Runtime localization artifact; violates docs-only contract |
 | `.rego` / `.cedar` / `.sentinel` policy files | fenced code in `examples/*.md` | Runtime policy artifact; violates docs-only contract |
 | Model artifacts (`.pkl`, `.onnx`, `.pt`, `.h5`, `.safetensors`) | fenced code + prose in `examples/*.md` | Runtime model artifact; violates docs-only contract |
 | Signed manifests as standalone files (`.sig`, `.att`, `.intoto.jsonl`) | fenced code in `examples/*.md` | Runtime attestation artifact; violates docs-only contract |
 | Standalone `.yaml` / `.tf` / `.sh` | fenced code in `examples/*.md` | (Carried forward from v0.2) Runtime deployable artifact |
 ## v0.3 Domain-Specific Anti-Patterns
 ### GitOps + Operators
 | Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
 |--------------|----------|-----|
 | Push-based deploy (external CI `kubectl apply` into the cluster) | P3 Pull, Don't Push | Inverts the model; requires push credentials; bypasses reconciliation |
 | Manual `kubectl apply`/`kubectl edit` on a GitOps-managed resource | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand | Unreconciled drift; the next loop overwrites it — silent and unattributed |
 | `cluster-admin` GitOps robot (controller bound to cluster-admin) | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation | Overbroad grant; blast radius = entire cluster |
 | No sync-failure notification (silent drift on health degradation) | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced | Silent drift is the bug the loop was supposed to surface |
 ### AI / ML
 | Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
 |--------------|----------|-----|
 | Unreproducible training run (unpinned data, code, config, or environment) | P1 Reproducibility is the First Class | Unreviewable; cannot debug, cannot rollback |
 | "Use the latest model" (serving points at `model:latest` instead of a pinned version) | P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts | Unversioned drift; rollback undefined |
 | Notebook in production (training/serving flow is a Jupyter notebook) | P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't | No contracts, no composition, no reproducibility |
 | Orphan model (deployed prediction with no lineage trace) | P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End | Unattributed artifact; cannot trace to data/code (IDEATE-27) |
 ### i18n
 | Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
 |--------------|----------|-----|
 | Inline string concatenation (`"Hello, " + name + "!"` in code) | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline | Not extractable; breaks translations; word-order differs per locale |
 | `if (n == 1)` plural branching (hand-rolled plural logic) | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized | Wrong for Arabic, Russian, Polish; ICU MessageFormat handles plurals |
 | LTR-only layout (no `dir` attribute, physical CSS `left`/`right`) | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive | Disqualifying for RTL/Bidi (IDEATE-25) |
 | Hand-rolled date/number formatter (`new Date().toString()`, manual string formatting) | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware | Locale-incorrect; ignores ICU/CLDR |
 ### Compliance
 | Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
 |--------------|----------|-----|
 | Mutable audit log (operator can `UPDATE`/`DELETE` audit records) | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only | Destroys the audit trail; mutation is itself an incident |
 | Shared/generic identity in audit (`admin` or `system` as the actor for all actions) | P7 Identity is Attributable | No attribution; no accountability; cannot investigate |
 | Secret leaked in audit log (request body or token captured in an audit event) | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit | Audit log becomes a secret exfiltration channel |
 | Manual evidence assembly at audit time (scramble to collect logs/scans/attestations on demand) | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously | Audit-unready; evidence gathered under pressure is incomplete and unreliable |
@@ -79,6 +79,56 @@ Run the relevant domain section from `agent-checklist.md` (UI/UX, API, Security,
 - [ ] Are ConfigMaps and Secrets separate?
 - [ ] Is the rollback path tested, not assumed?
 ### If GitOps + Operators
 - [ ] Is desired state sourced from git, not from the cluster?
 - [ ] Is configuration declarative, not imperative scripts?
 - [ ] Is reconciliation pull-based (no external push credentials into the cluster)?
 - [ ] Does the reconciliation loop run continuously and auto-correct drift?
 - [ ] Is every change a commit, with history as the audit/rollback path?
 - [ ] Is operational knowledge encoded as CRDs/controllers, not runbooks humans must remember?
 - [ ] Does progressive delivery (canary/blue-green) have a tested abort/rollback path?
 - [ ] Are there manual `kubectl apply`/`kubectl edit` on GitOps-managed resources? (flag as incident)
 - [ ] Do sync failures, health degradation, and rollout stalls emit status + notifications?
 - [ ] Are controller credentials scoped to reconciled namespaces/resources (no cluster-admin GitOps robot)?
 ### If AI / ML
 - [ ] Scope check: is this engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT algorithm/model design? (D-023 — reject algorithm-design content)
 - [ ] Is every training run reproducible from pinned data + code + config + environment?
 - [ ] Are datasets, features, and splits versioned artifacts with lineage (not just `git`)?
 - [ ] Can any deployed prediction trace back through model → training run → dataset → source?
 - [ ] Are metrics, splits, and thresholds declared a priori (no post-hoc metric cherry-picking)?
 - [ ] Are models pinned, immutable, registry-tracked artifacts (never "the latest")?
 - [ ] Is inference observable (latency, throughput, input distributions, prediction confidence)?
 - [ ] Are data drift, concept drift, and prediction drift monitored (drift signal = incident)?
 - [ ] Are inference inputs validated against the model's contract (schema, ranges, types)?
 - [ ] Are training/serving flows composable pipelines (not notebooks in production)?
 - [ ] Does serving rollback restore the prior model artifact, not just the prior code?
 ### If i18n
 - [ ] Is the source language treated as one locale among many, not the "neutral" default?
 - [ ] Do locale identifiers use BCP 47 tags (no ad-hoc locale codes)?
 - [ ] Are user-facing strings in locale resource files (not concatenated inline in code)?
 - [ ] Do plural/gender/select use ICU MessageFormat (no `if (n == 1)` branching)?
 - [ ] Are dates, times, numbers, currencies, units formatted via ICU/CLDR/`Intl` (no hand-rolled formatters)?
 - [ ] Is RTL/bidi a first-class layout concern (logical CSS properties over physical)?
 - [ ] Do layouts accommodate translation expansion (no fixed pixel widths for text)?
 - [ ] Are pseudo-locales used to test before real translations arrive?
 - [ ] Are icons, colors, and imagery reviewed for locale-sensitivity?
 - [ ] Are resource files versioned (bad translation = rollback, not hot-patch)?
 ### If Compliance
 - [ ] Scope check: is this framework-agnostic (no regulation-specific GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2/PCI content)? (D-024)
 - [ ] Are audit records immutable once written (deletion/mutation is itself an auditable incident)?
 - [ ] Is the set of auditable actions defined a priori ("we forgot to log it" is a violation)?
 - [ ] Is data lifetime declared and enforced as policy (deletion at end-of-life is a feature)?
 - [ ] Is compliance policy expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable code (not spreadsheets/prose)?
 - [ ] Do policy violations block before the action (admission/CI/CD-time, not after the audit)?
 - [ ] Is evidence gathered as a byproduct of operation (not assembled manually at audit time)?
 - [ ] Does every logged action trace to an authenticated principal (no shared/generic identities)?
 - [ ] Are data-subject rights (access, export, deletion) operations with defined contracts and audit trails?
 - [ ] Do audit logs avoid leaking secrets (redaction is structural, not opportunistic)?
 - [ ] Does the system report its own compliance state (drift from policy, open violations, retention status)?
 ## Review Etiquette
 - **Comment, don't command.** "This could be X" not "Change this to X."
Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jon Chery	61043dea1b	docs(P4): complete matrix + review + manifest integration phase ---ci--- project: atelier phase: 4 milestone: v0.3 status: complete requirements: covered: [ATELIER-80, ATELIER-81, ATELIER-82, ATELIER-83, ATELIER-84, ATELIER-85] partial: [] ---/ci---	2026-08-05 03:35:26 +00:00
Jon Chery	44a7049860	docs(ship): P3 complete — checkpoint + roadmap status ---ci--- project: atelier phase: 3 milestone: v0.3 status: complete phase_tag: v0.2.3 release_id: 471 ---/ci---	2026-08-05 03:30:29 +00:00
Jon Chery	7dfd3cdc6c	docs(P3): complete i18n + compliance domains phase ---ci--- project: atelier phase: 3 milestone: v0.3 status: complete requirements: covered: [ATELIER-70, ATELIER-71, ATELIER-72, ATELIER-73, ATELIER-74, ATELIER-75, ATELIER-76, ATELIER-77, ATELIER-78, ATELIER-79] partial: [] ---/ci---	2026-08-05 03:30:14 +00:00
Jon Chery	c026c8930b	docs(ship): P2 complete — checkpoint + roadmap status ---ci--- project: atelier phase: 2 milestone: v0.3 status: complete phase_tag: v0.2.2 release_id: 470 ---/ci---	2026-08-05 03:24:26 +00:00