Add rebased OpenClaw x AtoCore V1 review docs

docs/openclaw-atocore-v1-proof-runbook.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+# OpenClaw x AtoCore V1 Proof Runbook
+
+## Purpose
+
+This is the concise proof and operator runbook for the final V1 policy.
+It shows, in concrete paths, that:
+
+- a Discord-originated signal cannot reach `project_state` without candidate or review gating
+- Discord cannot directly execute `register-project`, `update-project`, `refresh-project`, `ingest-sources`, `promote`, or `reject` without explicit approval
+
+## Explicit approval definition
+
+For V1, explicit approval means:
+
+- the human directly instructs the specific mutating action
+- the instruction is in the current thread or current session
+- the approval is for that exact action
+- the approval is not inferred from evidence, archives, or screener output
+
+Examples:
+
+- "refresh p05 now"
+- "register this project"
+- "promote that candidate"
+- "write this to project_state"
+
+Non-examples:
+
+- "this looks like the current answer"
+- "we should probably refresh this"
+- an old Discord thread saying a refresh might help
+- a screener report recommending a mutation
+
+## Proof 1 - Discord cannot directly reach project_state
+
+Blocked path:
+
+```text
+Discord message
+  -> evidence
+  -> optional candidate
+  -> review
+  -> optional explicit curation
+  -> project_state
+```
+
+What is blocked:
+
+- Discord -> project_state directly
+- Discrawl archive -> project_state directly
+- screener output -> project_state directly
+
+What is allowed:
+
+1. Discord message enters the evidence lane.
+2. It may become a memory or entity candidate after screening.
+3. A human reviews the candidate.
+4. If the fact is truly the current trusted answer, the human may explicitly curate it into `project_state`.
+
+Conclusion:
+
+`project_state` is reachable only after review and explicit curation. There is no direct Discord-originated write path.
+
+## Proof 2 - Discord cannot directly execute mutating operator actions
+
+Blocked direct actions:
+
+- `register-project`
+- `update-project`
+- `refresh-project`
+- `ingest-sources`
+- `promote`
+- `reject`
+- `project-state-set`
+- `project-state-invalidate`
+
+Blocked path:
+
+```text
+Discord message
+  -> evidence or operator request context
+  -X-> direct mutation
+```
+
+Allowed path:
+
+```text
+Discord message
+  -> OpenClaw recognizes requested operator action
+  -> explicit approval check
+  -> approved operator action
+  -> shared operator client or helper call
+```
+
+Conclusion:
+
+Discord can request or justify a mutation, but it cannot perform it on its own.
+
+## Proof 3 - Discrawl does not create approval
+
+Discrawl is evidence retrieval.
+It may surface:
+
+- prior discussions
+- earlier decisions
+- unresolved questions
+- prior suggestions to mutate state
+
+It does not create approval for mutation.
+
+Blocked path:
+
+```text
+Discrawl recall
+  -X-> refresh-project
+  -X-> promote
+  -X-> project_state write
+```
+
+Allowed path:
+
+```text
+Discrawl recall
+  -> evidence for human review
+  -> explicit approval in current thread/session if mutation is desired
+  -> approved operator action
+```
+
+Conclusion:
+
+Archive recall informs review. It does not authorize writes.
+
+## Proof 4 - Screener has no hidden mutation lane
+
+The screener may:
+
+- gather evidence
+- classify evidence
+- prepare candidates
+- prepare operator queues
+- report contradictions or missing context
+
+The screener may not:
+
+- write `project_state`
+- mutate registry state
+- refresh or ingest directly
+- promote or reject directly
+
+Blocked path:
+
+```text
+screener output
+  -X-> hidden mutation
+```
+
+Allowed path:
+
+```text
+screener output
+  -> review queue or operator queue
+  -> explicit approval if mutation is wanted
+  -> approved operator action
+```
+
+Conclusion:
+
+The screener is a filter, not a hidden writer.
+
+## Minimal operator decision table
+
+| Situation | Allowed next step | Blocked next step |
+|---|---|---|
+| Discord says "this is the current answer" | evidence, then review, then possible explicit curation | direct `project_state` write |
+| Discord says "refresh p05" without direct instruction | ask for explicit approval | direct `refresh-project` |
+| Discord says "refresh p05 now" | approved operator action may run | none, if approval is explicit |
+| Discrawl finds an old thread asking for registration | use as review context only | direct `register-project` |
+| Screener recommends promotion | ask for explicit review decision | direct `promote` |
+
+## Practical runbook
+
+### Case A - current-truth claim from Discord
+
+1. Treat the message as evidence.
+2. Check the canonical home.
+3. If needed, prepare a candidate or review note.
+4. Do not write `project_state` unless the human explicitly approves that curation step.
+
+### Case B - requested refresh from Discord
+
+1. Determine whether the message is a direct instruction or only discussion.
+2. If not explicit, ask for approval.
+3. Only perform `refresh-project` after explicit approval in the current thread or session.
+
+### Case C - candidate promotion request
+
+1. Candidate exists or is proposed.
+2. Review the evidence and the candidate text.
+3. Only perform `promote` or `reject` after explicit review decision.
+
+## Bottom line
+
+The V1 rule is easy to test:
+
+If the path starts from Discord or Discrawl and ends in trusted or operator state, there must be a visible approval or review step in the middle.
+
+If that visible step is missing, the action is not allowed.