# 04 — Tools outside the vault that consume vault materials > *"although we will have the vaults, I think it is worth exploring the creation of other tools and pages that are outside the vaults that consume the materials from the vault, so this is worth exploring."* **Good news: this pattern already exists on the estate, it works, and there is a near-exact architectural precedent for a standards conformance tool.** This document names the precedent, states the contract, and specifies five tools worth building. --- ## 1. The precedent — Private Health Score Vault `zc6abngv` — 35 files, 1.2 MB. What it does: > loads *"a versioned JSON standard — **five dimensions, five bands, eight scoring rules** — from the vault at runtime"* and computes deterministic scores, **separating rule-derived numbers from LLM-generated prose**. Read that again with "standard" meaning ISO rather than health. **The standard is data in the vault; the tool is code that reads it.** That is precisely the shape a conformance calculator needs, and it is already built and working on this estate. Two other precedents: - **Risk Graph Explorer** (`3simlnqe`) — the purest example of vault-data-as-live-computation. Answering questions recomputes **seven views** simultaneously; the same questions answered differently yield 18 facts / 37 risks / 14 provisions. Amber edges = exposure, green = assurance, **ghosted = unanswered**. Zero network calls, `permissions: {}`. - **Regulation Graph's SQL and RDF views** — the instrument queried as a database (`sql.js`) and as a triple store with Turtle export. **Three working precedents. This is not exploratory; it is established practice waiting to be pointed at standards.** --- ## 2. The contract between a tool and a vault If tools live outside vaults, the boundary needs a contract or every tool ends up coupled to one vault's internals. **Read this and only this:** ``` MANIFEST.json instrument id, version, amendments, build date, counts graph/nodes.json stable node ids (positional hashes) graph/edges.json typed edges from the published grammar graph/graph.sqlite the same graph, queryable concepts/*.json defined terms; one identifier, many labels crosswalk/*.json FrameworkReference bridges ``` **The five rules:** 1. **Version the contract, not just the data.** `MANIFEST.json` carries a `contract_version`. A tool declares which it speaks and refuses politely rather than silently misreading a newer shape. 2. **Address by positional hash, never by array index or display label.** Labels are translations; positions survive amendment. This is the whole point of the two-hash scheme (`02__` §4). 3. **A tool never holds a write key.** Read key or downloaded zip. `03__` §4. 4. **A tool that computes must say what it computed from.** Every number carries the provision it derives from and the hash of that provision's text. *"Computed, not claimed."* 5. **A tool that cannot answer must say so visibly.** Regulation Graph and Risk Graph Explorer both ghost unanswered nodes rather than defaulting them. **An unanswered question is an output.** Follow it. **And one prohibition:** no metered capability behind a published read key. Regulation Graph's Art 9 Lab requires a bring-your-own OpenRouter key for exactly this reason. --- ## 3. Five tools worth building Ranked by value over effort. ### T1 — The crosswalk browser ⭐ build first Pick a provision in instrument A; see every provision in B, C, D that bridges to it, with the bridge's basis and confidence. Reads `crosswalk/*.json` across every instrument vault. **Why first:** it is the thing a multi-standard site sells, it is the only tool that gets *more* valuable with each instrument added, and it makes the compounding argument visible rather than asserted — *"map a second instrument and the edge resolves; map a third and two more resolve."* **Blocker:** zero crosswalks currently exist. T1 is the reason to write the first one. ### T2 — The conformance calculator Answer questions about your situation; get findings that each point at a named provision. Direct descendant of Private Health Score and Risk Graph Explorer. **Non-negotiable framing.** The corpus rejects the compliance-verdict posture four separate times: *"**Not a compliance product.** It exists to give risks an evidentiary anchor, not to tell an organisation whether it passes"* / *"Not a compliance verdict."* So: **it outputs findings and unanswered questions, never a score, never a pass.** W1's `V1` is the model — *"thirty days against six months… arithmetic, not judgement"* — published alongside its own caveat, *"most obligations are not that crisp, and the graph must not imply they are."* ### T3 — The amendment differ Two versions of an instrument in, changed provisions out — by content hash, so it is exact rather than textual. Directly serves *"the amendment is the business model"*, and directly fixes Regulation Graph's two-commits-no-history gap. **This is the tool that makes the site a living resource rather than a snapshot.** ### T4 — The provision citation resolver A stable URL per provision that resolves to the text, the hash, the retrieval record, and every crosswalk touching it. Content-negotiates to JSON. **Small, and it unblocks everything else.** Right now there is no stable citation scheme anywhere on the estate — table stakes for a site whose value is being citable. Build it with instrument two. ### T5 — Cross-vault search Each vault is currently an island; the Catalogue indexes them but does not search inside them. A prebuilt search index per vault plus a federated client-side query. **Hardest of the five**, and the one most likely to want a real backend. Defer until instrument four. --- ## 4. Where tools live | | Recommendation | |---|---| | **The tool's code** | **In the repo**, rendered on `standards.sgit.ai`. It is small, it must be inspectable, and it is exactly the *"clear text enables verification"* argument from `02__` §2 | | **The data it reads** | **In the vault.** Bulky, versioned, and the delivery unit | | **A vault-internal copy of the tool** | **Yes, for the flagship instruments.** So the downloaded zip is self-sufficient offline. Accept the duplication; build both from one source | That split gives three delivery modes from one build — a page on the site, an app inside the vault, and a zip that works with no network — which is the memo's *"delivery mechanism"* claim actually delivered. --- ## 5. What must be true before T1 ships 1. **One crosswalk exists.** Any pair. AI Act ↔ GDPR is the natural first — the corpus already notes they apply *"concurrent"*. 2. **The bridge node type is instantiated.** `FrameworkReference` is specified and never built. 3. **A confidence or basis field on every bridge.** A crosswalk that cannot express *"partially, and here is why"* will be either wrong or useless. The corpus has the vocabulary — *"shades of compliance"*. 4. **The contract version is stamped** in `MANIFEST.json`. 5. **The citation scheme is decided** (T4), because every bridge is a pair of citations. --- This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).