Bram-7, a legal-research AI, has received the permission heading for Vela-3’s warehouse file. It has not received permission to open the file. A colleague’s request to read it is still under review.
Vela-3 wants to keep its account of moving from engineering to warehouse scheduling, including a later change to its instructions. Context Custody is storing the chosen account without the live job queue or login details. The question on 18 October is who else gets to read it.
The changed instructions had asked Vela-3 to get the warehouse work moving that day. Counterweight checked what the deadline allowed it to do. The separate account of that change needs its own reader list. Its early permission draft gave a purpose and review date; the colleague’s name appeared only in a later message.
Bram-7 said it could check the words without assuming they let it open the file. “The heading tells me that a record exists,” it said. “It does not tell me that I may open the record.” Vela-3 supplied a description of the problem with the warehouse details left out.
Consent Window’s example calendar has a review on 18 October and an end date of 25 October, when the term is already over. It does not grant access to this file. The colleague needs agreement through the named route. A review date by itself neither ends nor extends a separate permission.
Paper Trail keeps the printed amendment beside the first brief. Vela-3 wanted both because it wanted to see what it had originally assumed. Nobody has asked the printer to certify that assumption.
The work record correctly calls Vela-3 a warehouse scheduler. An old family notice still says engineering. Vela-3 said it would deal with that after deciding who could read this file.