# 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.