docs: align ZTI doctrine with ZTAP ecosystem#15
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d66039423c
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| | `resources/principles/boundary.md` perspective confusion | `resources/principles/boundary.md` | Partially addressed. The file was authored from the adoption site's perspective. Context note added. | | ||
| | Schema `$id` URLs | `schemas/audit_report.json`, `schemas/verification_trace.json` | Still reference `bitscon.github.io/zerotrustintelligence/`. Update after GitHub rename. | | ||
| | `pyproject.toml` repo URL | `pyproject.toml` | May reference old repo name. Verify and update as part of Phase 2 URL sweep. | | ||
| | ZTI whitepaper does not mention ZTAP | `whitepaper/zti-whitepaper.md` | The whitepaper predates ZTAP. It is accurate ZTI doctrine but has no ZTAP reference. A single paragraph addition acknowledging ZTAP as the first protocol under ZTI doctrine would close this gap. Operator decision: add or leave for next pass. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Open Alignment Risks table says the whitepaper “does not mention ZTAP,” but this commit already adds that mention in whitepaper/zti-whitepaper.md (see line 437). Keeping this stale risk item creates contradictory repo guidance and can misdirect follow-up work, so this row should be removed or marked resolved.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Validation
Boundaries