docs(receipts): put the receipt spec under version control - #125
Conversation
The format spec and the resolver API it pins lived on one disk, untracked. A fresh session reading master could not find either. This commits both, byte-identical except the title: DRAFT v0.9.4 said a version the Status block deliberately held at v0.6. The resolver digest is still sha256:6260043a360e61f2e138c3d2f7832b3b9d1718f188ea1f56f04c0e9b9f62e18e — the pin at §6a. No format bump. Handoffs and design notes in docs/specs/ stay untracked so they cannot become a third spec. Co-Authored-By: Grok 4.6 <grok@x.ai> Signed-off-by: Cam <cam@camwhiteus.com>
Codex gates (local CLI)Reviewed SHA:
Gates 2 and 3 are not reviews. PR stays draft. Ship owns merge / ready. |
Residuals — not applied in this PRThis PR puts the frozen spec under git. Title-only reconcile (v0.9.4 → v0.6). Do not apply Codex P1s to the frozen text here. From certified gate 1 (
Gates 2 and 3 still cannot certify: Codex API has no credits ( |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9c8caec2ee
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| **The floor claim is CONDITIONAL, and the precondition is:** *the amount covers | ||
| a subset of costs actually caused by the subject, and everything omitted is | ||
| non-negative.* It does not hold uniformly. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The preceding amendment explicitly says the floor framing was rejected and must not be rendered, but this paragraph reintroduces a normative conditional floor; the following text even declares the CLI non-conformant for omitting it. A page or verifier implementing the latter instructions can therefore restore the explicitly rejected at least $X financial claim. Remove the obsolete floor requirements so the normative section consistently requires an unqualified amount with its scope shown beneath it.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| @@ -0,0 +1,2254 @@ | |||
| # Receipt Spec + ID Format — DRAFT v0.6 (usertrust drafts, stealth reviews) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commit 52f676c04f43b2d718cfc0dc8f5907e17f6046c2 has no Signed-off-by trailer, so the repository's DCO workflow will reject the branch and require the commit history to be corrected before merge.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L1198-L1206
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
What
Puts the two normative receipt documents under git. Docs only.
docs/specs/receipt-spec.mdae4490fe…after title-only edit (was0b8f4475…)docs/specs/receipt-resolver-api.md6260043a360e61f2e138c3d2f7832b3b9d1718f188ea1f56f04c0e9b9f62e18e(unchanged)The spec's §6a pin still names
6260043a…. Title was DRAFT v0.9.4 while Status held the format at v0.6 — title is now v0.6. Status block history untouched. No format bump.Supporting, not committed
Other files under
docs/specs/(handoffs, verify-page design, CLI notes) stay untracked. They are supporting, not normative. Committing them would make a handoff look like a third spec.Not this PR