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

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:

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:

Discord message
  -> evidence or operator request context
  -X-> direct mutation

Allowed path:

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:

Discrawl recall
  -X-> refresh-project
  -X-> promote
  -X-> project_state write

Allowed path:

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:

screener output
  -X-> hidden mutation

Allowed path:

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.