A relationship-based authorisation service: a resource server asks whether a user has a relationship with an object, and refuses when the answer is no. Written as an answer, that is read-only access for an agent whose relationships allow only reading, where the server holding the data does the check.
The model asks sixteen questions about an agent deployment. A product’s effect is written as the answers it changes, and each change says what kind of change it is: a statement of what is true, an expectation the agent is asked to meet, a setting, or a boundary enforced by something the agent’s grant does not include.
Computed from the model for the deployment above: every risk that holds without it, and every risk that holds with it.
Retired
Each risk is assigned to the roles it belongs to, and each role reports to another until the board. The count beside each role is the entries it holds without the product and with it.
At the board: the corporate register
Corporate risks have no facts of their own. They hold while any risk that leads into them holds, so a single product rarely retires one. What it changes is how many reasons the board is being given.
It sits in the resource server's request path and stores relationship tuples. The pages read do not say what happens when it cannot be reached.
An open-source project costs nothing to download and something to adopt. Every change above depends on the work below, and most of it is customisation to your own deployment.
Next. Published, and sent to the project's maintainers at the same time. If a change is wrong, or another answer should move, the case changes with the date they said so.
If you build a security product for agents, the case for it can be written the same way: what it does in your own words, the answers it changes, and the register before and after. If a case here is wrong about you, tell us and it changes with a date.