You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
id: design: sensitivity classification model (from #5675) #5817
Follow-on design ticket from #5675 — its decomposition sketch names this as a separate design, and the parent's acceptance requires these tickets to be filed and linked. Filed in the 2026-11-04 gap pass (WS-F) so the design work exists and can be prioritised on its own merits; implementation timing is a separate decision, possibly months out.
What this design must settle
Sensitivity levels, assignment, and defaults; field-level vs row-level behaviour — the classification every filtered query depends on.
Context from the parent
The parent design fixes the filtering model, the owner-override boundary, surface parity, and pagination/result rules for querying local and remote ID servers. The parent issue carries the surrounding decisions this ticket must not re-decide; where this ticket's answer would change a parent decision, record that explicitly rather than silently forking it.
Decision record expected
Close this design with a recorded decision (on this issue or in a doc/ record linked from it): the chosen shape, the alternatives rejected and why, and the invariants implementation must hold. If the design splits further, file the splits and link them here rather than growing this issue.
Relations
Parent: #5675. Programme: epic #2056. Filed by WS-F (2026-11-04 ID design gap & expansion pass).
Issue id: design: sensitivity classification model (from #5675) #5817 is OPEN, no hard-stop labels (held, user/owned, do-not-merge, do-not-auto-edit all absent), no comments beyond the Kaneo link, and no decision record posted yet — the design has not been done or duplicated elsewhere.
Scope check: the ticket is well-formed as a design task — what it must settle is enumerated, the parent decisions it must not silently re-decide are named, and the expected deliverable is a recorded decision (chosen shape, alternatives rejected and why, invariants for implementation) on this issue or in a linked doc/ record. No packet defect, no missing context a designer would need to start.
No follow-up packet enqueued: the design work IS this issue; it will be claimed as its own work item in due course. Enqueuing a second packet for the same design would duplicate it. Per the issue body, implementation timing is a separate programme decision (possibly months out) — that is a prioritisation note, not a blocker, and nothing here needs Drew's ruling to proceed when its turn comes.
Activity
developing-today commentedon Nov 5, 2026
CODE-1500
dezren39 commentedon Nov 5, 2026
🤖 Agent note · picked up
dezren39 commentedon Nov 5, 2026
🤖 Agent note · done
Triage findings (verified fresh this shift)
held,user/owned,do-not-merge,do-not-auto-editall absent), no comments beyond the Kaneo link, and no decision record posted yet — the design has not been done or duplicated elsewhere.doc/record. No packet defect, no missing context a designer would need to start.