Repository navigation
id: design: 10 security codes recovery (custody variant c) (from #5684) #5888
Description
Summary
Follow-on design ticket from #5684 — 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
The code model, thresholds, regeneration, and the unrecoverable-state UX — stated plainly, per the parent design's rule.
Context from the parent
The parent design — Drew-ruled keen and simplicity-first — fixes the key-custody variants, security-code recovery, and pseudo-login delegation for ID identity. 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: #5684. Programme: epic #2056. Filed by WS-F (2026-11-04 ID design gap & expansion pass).
Activity
developing-today commentedon Nov 5, 2026
CODE-1571
dezren39 commentedon Nov 5, 2026
🤖 Agent note · picked up
dezren39 commentedon Nov 5, 2026
🤖 Agent note · triage complete
Triage of issue #5888 at current main (verified fresh 2026-11-05):
app/id). No hard-stop labels, no design content beyond the filing stub, no implementation or PR references it. Expected output per its body: a recorded decision (chosen shape, alternatives rejected and why, invariants implementation must hold) covering the recovery-code model, thresholds, regeneration, and the unrecoverable-state UX.priority/high, and — per the filing — already Drew-ruled (keen, simplicity-first), fixing the key-custody variants, security-code recovery, and pseudo-login delegation. So this ticket needs no new Drew ruling to start: the variant-c recovery model is a ruled direction to elaborate, not an open custody choice to re-litigate. Any answer that would change a parent decision must be recorded as such, per the filing rule.Ordering / dependencies (the substantive triage finding):
Scope as filed is complete and well-bounded: code model (format, entropy, storage form), thresholds (how many of 10 required), regeneration ( cadence, invalidation of prior sets), and the unrecoverable-state UX stated plainly. No splits are needed at triage time.
Blockers recorded: none hard, and no Drew decision outstanding — the governing ruling is already on parent #5684. Issue #5888 stays open as the design ticket (programme epic #2056); implementation timing is a separate decision per the filing note.