SCOPE v0.7.0: institutional pilot hardening#4
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Align pyproject with institutional pilot hardening release.
Record provenance on every decision so caller-supplied JSON cannot masquerade as institutional identity.
Centralize scope-to-role and action-matrix checks before decisions are accepted.
Give workshop facilitators a clearer end-to-end AKTA plus SCOPE demo script.
Document shared expectations for PCS, PF-Core, and AKTA adapter surfaces.
Help labs map reviewer keys to registry entries without ambiguous refs.
Tie quality reports to pilot success criteria and overdue detection.
Shorten the path from workshop to production-mode pilot checklist.
Help domain scientists record rationale and scope without bypassing session rules.
Keep threat framing honest about runtime enforcement versus organizational controls.
Anchor terminology for grants, packets, and enforcement in one reference.
Codify why multi-role sessions and abstentions are first-class outcomes.
Connect protocol design choices to real lab authorization pain points.
Explain how PF-Core consumes scoped obligations from SCOPE exports.
Clarify PCS artifact layout for downstream verification tooling.
Reduce adapter drift when mapping external evidence into review packets.
Point integrators at runnable AKTA example inputs and expected outputs.
Document how to produce and verify PCS exports from sample grants.
Clarify obligation export steps for PF-Core runtime handoff.
Keep the PF-Core example obligation on the v0.7 schema reviewers expect.
Match the pilot folder layout to the institutional onboarding guide.
Explain required roles when an active protocol changes under review.
Show how drift detection ties packets to stale grant attempts.
Highlight multi-role session requirements for publication actions.
Show why PI or lab ops roles gate resource prioritization actions.
Demonstrate expiration and protocol change invalidating prior grants.
Guide reviewers through insufficient evidence without over-scoping grants.
Supply a canonical reviewer profile for workshops and eval harnesses.
Provide a typed approve decision sample aligned with role policy.
Offer a contrasting decision artifact for multi-role session demos.
Keep the weak-evidence scenario decision consistent with current schema.
Complete the weak-evidence walkthrough with a domain-scientist vote sample.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Test plan
.\scripts\ci.ps1(ruff, mypy, pytest)python evals/run_review_cases.py --extended(19/19 scenarios)release/v0.7.0before merge to main