# 07 — Gaps and open questions

## 1. Before launch — blocking

| # | Item | Why |
|---|---|---|
| **B1** | **Solicitor review of the publishing rule and entry one** | The source's own flag: *"review costs less before than after"* |
| **B2** | **The selection rule, published** | *"A founder-led list is a founder's grievances until the selection rule is published"* |
| **B3** | **The refusal interval, published** | It defines a refusal; per-case choice is indefensible |
| **B4** | **The template, versioned** | Entries quote it by version; it must exist before ask one |
| **B5** | **Authority-capture workflow** | Representative SARs need evidence of authority; *"doing it badly is how the mechanism gets refused"* |

## 2. Open questions — carried from the sources plus three new

| # | Question | Status |
|---|---|---|
| **Q1** | Does a published policy page count as an answer even when it means a company answers *"without ever knowing anything"*? | The source's own sharpest tension on the reflexivity fix. Recommendation: yes, recorded as "answered by policy" — a distinguishable row type |
| **Q2** | Card-issuer lever: in or out of the perimeter? | Advice, then decide. Launch without |
| **Q3** | How is the sign-up flow evidenced retrospectively? | Archives are the only source; a `/method/` page on flow archiving is worth writing early — it is also what makes the exit measurements re-runnable |
| **Q4** | What happens at spring 2027? | Planned, not absorbed: the standard's delta table (`01__` §3) is the transition artefact |
| **Q5** | Who owns the dated legal pages? | Named owner per page, or the pages do not ship |
| **Q6** | When does the register move to a non-profit? | *"Easier before there is a register than after"* — the vault design makes it a re-point; the decision is still a decision |
| **Q7** *(new)* | **Jurisdiction signalling** — the levers are UK; the standard and the exit measurements travel. Does the site present as UK-first with a general standard, or general-first with UK levers? | Unanswered from the naming conversation. Recommendation: general standard, clearly-badged UK law section — the register schema is jurisdiction-free |
| **Q8** *(new)* | Does the founder's own ten-company ask list pass the selection rule he publishes? | The first test of B2, and worth stating that it was applied |
| **Q9** *(new)* | Where do *international* clause-3 measurements go? | Exit paths are measurable anywhere; the register question is UK-flavoured. Decide whether `/exit/` is global from day one |

## 3. Honest gaps

- **No adopters at launch.** The standard's adopters list starts empty; publish it empty rather than seeding it with sympathetic friends.
- **The service half is one client deep**, and he built it. The unrepresentative-sample warning is in the source; the second and third clients are chosen for being unlike him.
- **The inconsistency test needs a method page** — reading marketing *"carefully enough to be sure"* is slow and should be documented as a repeatable procedure before it is run in anger.
- **The exit measurements age fastest** — *"a flow can change overnight"* — so the re-run cadence is part of the method, not an afterthought.

---

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).