Digital identity — evidence and limits

Approval recorded, 5 October 2026: all 2 recommendations on the review page were accepted. The preparation and consistency notes below are historical evidence, not current pending status. This update records meanings only; it does not repeat the live probes or certify implementation.

Bounded review preparation, 5 October 2026. Two residual choices from the original environment/digital bundle are proposed. No answer, complete architecture audit or implementation is claimed.

Prior work recovered

The original identity spreadsheet has separate Web Design System, Responsive Design, App Design and Icons & UI rows. The current extraction and B-05 card convert those into a bundled proposal. The August dictation asks for extraction and review; it does not approve every extracted row. The answer intake has no B-05 reply. Searches across the July/August Markdown records and current rulings found no exact approval of these two definitions; absence from that search alone is not proof about every historical conversation.

The reviewed current decisions already separate source products from depicted subjects, useful parts from their parent documents, and documented claims from interpretation. Those meanings are carried forward. The older card's Mercado and Choice AI images have not been revalidated for design-system membership and are not used as proof here. Environment, App Icon Suite, component-level coverage and the wider list stay open. The original bundle is retained with independent child choices rather than marked answered.

Inspected primary text examples

• Fluent development guide: its platform selection links a common design language to distinct implementation libraries. This supports a shared concept with platform scope; it does not prove that any particular captured product screen uses Fluent.
• Carbon 2x Grid: inspected documented layout adaptation and panel guidance. This is evidence about published rules, not a measurement of the website's behavior at different widths.

These examples were inspected as text. No animation or screen-treatment classification is claimed. The review compares retaining separate platform kinds, removing the finer distinctions, and retaining common meaning with explicit scope and a useful adaptation description. The last approach is recommended; a general layout-only description remains an explicit alternative.

Selected system evidence

The repository receipt digital-systems-preflight.json preserves literal read-only schema and record-query outputs and four hashed local excerpts. The schema selection includes guideline sections, selected content fields and the vocabulary registry. The section-count result measures only the selected source URL field; it does not prove absence of evidence elsewhere. The separate enum lookup returned no rows matching its exact predicates, not proof that no equivalent concept exists under another name.

The inspected local onboarding prompt can generate from training knowledge when extracted source text is absent. Its seed function writes unpublished guideline sections and can replace existing sections when forced. The local consumer hook selects published sections. Those observations do not establish deployed route activation, source fidelity, permissions, human-correction preservation or every alternative reader. No generation, force replacement or production write was run.

The technical audit must trace the actual input, prompt, validation, write, publication and all readers before prescribing repairs. The current section structure is not evidence that the complete system/version/product relationship is already implemented. A text-only description, a link inferred by a model and a source-supported relationship must not silently become the same assertion.

Human relationships through the workflow

The guideline publication, documented system, supported platform, product and captured screen answer different questions. One publication may document several parts of a system; several publications may document one system. A product may use several systems or versions, and a system may serve several products. These are implications to validate, not new physical schema claims. Similarity alone does not establish membership or ownership.

Collection must retain source identity and capture conditions. Classification must preserve the distinction between stated rules and observed application. Search and tracker queries must use the same relationship meanings. Cited answers need the supporting passage or capture, and earlier conversations need stable evidence when a source changes. Human corrections, merges, withdrawal, permissions, scheduling and cost controls remain in the comprehensive workflow audit.

Physical keys, required values, constraints, relationship direction, junctions, indexes and query behavior are not certified by this packet. Those are implementation checks after the meanings are settled. The complete audit remains open; these two choices can advance without reopening already-approved evidence rules.

Prepared 5 October 2026.