Adjacent findings — real, actionable, not threats

The pass will surface things that are worth acting on and are not threats. A contract clause that does not cover a task that will certainly happen. A document describing an architecture the design has moved away from. A scope decision nobody has taken.

Forcing these into the findings register corrupts it – a reader is entitled to assume every F- line describes a way the system can harm someone or be harmed. Dropping them loses work the pass paid for. So they land here, as ADJ-n, a separate series.

What belongs here

Contract and scope	A task the work requires that the agreements do not cleanly authorise
Document drift	Two documents describing the same thing differently, where one is stale
Spec gaps	A design decision the pass assumed was made, and finds was not

What does not belong here. Anything describing a way the system can harm someone or be harmed. That is a finding, however awkward its category.

How these resolve

Not by being fixed here. Each entry names where it goes to die – a document to amend, a decision to take, a conversation to have. An entry with no route out is not finished.

---

ADJ-1 ·