OI-02: the second of the three lines this system does not cross - no
recommended setpoints or operating parameters - is expected to come up as
a feature request. An Advisory answer gives evidence, ranges, outcomes and
documented limits, then defers to a competent person, and never returns a
number as the answer. There is a foreseeable case for allowing it, and the
conversation should start from what is built rather than from scratch.
The entry records where the rule actually lives, because it is a code path
and not a prompt instruction, so relaxing it is a change in four places at
once: AdvisoryAnswer's recommendation_given: Literal[False] and required
deferral in api/contracts.py, the classifier routing anything
partly-advisory to the class that refuses to advise, 14 Advisory cases in
the eval set, and 15 tests. It also records what has to be decided before
any of that is touched - who is accountable for the number, what evidence
is sufficient when the historian shows what happened rather than what the
plant can safely do now, and how a recommendation is told apart from a
documented limit on screen.
It is blocked by the OT/safety review of section 2 of the build spec,
which is still outstanding. That review will have the strongest opinion on
this rule of anything in the document, so the rule should not be relaxed
before it happens.
The register's header said it held work we "intend to do", and its
boundary table admitted only defects. OI-02 is neither: the rule works as
designed. Rather than let the register's rules and its contents disagree -
which is the failure this register exists to prevent - the header now
covers decisions we expect to revisit, and the table has a row for them
requiring the entry to be marked "not a defect".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
status/OPEN-ISSUES.md is a fourth register, so it opens by saying what
does NOT belong in it. Work blocked on other people stays in REQUESTS.md;
shortcuts we consciously accepted stay in BUILD-AI-CONTAINERS.md 14 and
are closed by decision, not to be re-raised here; what is running stays
in current-state.html. What had no home until now is a defect we own and
have not fixed - those were living in commit messages. Closed issues move
to the bottom rather than being deleted: this repo is an as-built record,
and an issue with no trace of how it closed is worth less than one that
was never raised.
OI-01: the OpenPLC Editor is not installed anywhere. It is a desktop tool
published by OpenPLC, and it is what authors and compiles the IEC 61131-3
program openplc-runtime executes. Without it there is no reviewable
source for the control logic in or beside this repository - the program
exists only inside the container.
Raising it exposed two wrong statements in the build spec, both calling
port 8443 the "OpenPLC Runtime web UI". Probed read-only on the host:
Server: Werkzeug/3.1.8 Python/3.11.2
/ /login /index.html /programs /status /runtime -> 404
/api/v1 -> 401 Unauthorized
It is an authenticated REST API with no browser interface at all. Section
4 now says so with the evidence, and 14's entry is restated: 8443 is
contained by the same 10.0.0.17 binding as 502, but unlike 502 it is not
anonymous, which is a better position than that section recorded. The
binding is still the control that matters.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
