Skip to content

Risk Register

The durable risks for bijux-canon-reason are the ones that make the package boundary, interface contract, or produced artifacts harder to trust.

This page should keep long-lived risk language attached to the package instead of scattering it across reviews and memory. The goal is not alarmism; it is to help maintainers remember which failures would actually cost credibility.

Treat the quality pages for bijux-canon-reason as the proof frame around the package. They should show how trust is earned and where skepticism still belongs.

Visual Summary

flowchart TB
    page["Risk Register<br/>clarifies: see proof | see limitations | judge done-ness"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    proof1["tests/unit for planning, reasoning, execution, verification, and interfaces"]
    proof1 --> page
    proof2["tests/e2e for API, CLI, replay gates, retrieval reasoning, and smoke coverage"]
    proof2 --> page
    proof3["tests/perf for retrieval benchmark coverage"]
    proof3 --> page
    risk1["CHANGELOG.md"]
    risk1 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk2["pyproject.toml"]
    risk2 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk3["README.md"]
    risk3 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    bar1["proof before confidence"]
    page --> bar1
    bar2["done means defended behavior"]
    page --> bar2
    bar3["package trust after change"]
    page --> bar3
    class page page;
    class proof1,proof2,proof3 positive;
    class risk1,risk2,risk3 caution;
    class bar1,bar2,bar3 action;

Ongoing Risks to Watch

  • hidden overlap with neighboring packages
  • drift between docs, code, and tests
  • compatibility changes that are not made explicit

Concrete Anchors

  • tests/unit for planning, reasoning, execution, verification, and interfaces
  • tests/e2e for API, CLI, replay gates, retrieval reasoning, and smoke coverage
  • README.md

Use This Page When

  • you are reviewing tests, invariants, limitations, or ongoing risks
  • you need evidence that the documented contract is actually defended
  • you are deciding whether a change is truly done rather than merely implemented

Decision Rule

Use Risk Register to decide whether bijux-canon-reason has actually earned trust after a change. If one narrow green check hides a wider contract, risk, or validation gap, the work is not done yet.

What This Page Answers

  • what currently proves the bijux-canon-reason contract instead of merely describing it
  • which risks, limits, and assumptions still need explicit skepticism
  • what a reviewer should be able to say before accepting a change as done

Reviewer Lens

  • compare the documented proof story with the actual test layout and release posture
  • look for limitations or risks that should have moved with recent behavior changes
  • verify that the claimed done-ness standard still reflects real validation practice

Honesty Boundary

This page explains how bijux-canon-reason is supposed to earn trust, but it does not claim that prose alone is enough. If the listed tests, checks, and review practice stop backing the story, the story has to change.

Next Checks

  • move to foundation when the risk appears to be boundary confusion rather than missing tests
  • move to architecture when the proof gap points to structural drift
  • move to interfaces or operations when the proof question is really about a contract or workflow

Purpose

This page keeps long-lived package risks visible to maintainers.

Stability

Update it when the durable risk profile changes, not for routine day-to-day churn.