alva/felsokning/docs/TUV-AUDIT-2.md

Conformity Re-examination · TÜV-style Audit, Round 2

ALVA 3.3 · 2026-08-06 · ALVA-DOC-0007

Internal engineering review conducted in the style of a certification re-examination. Not endorsed by TÜV or any inspection body. The value is in the findings, not the letterhead.

Scope. Everything added since the first examination (ALVA-DOC-0003): the event hash chain, the closing seal, the derived confidence ceiling, the ten-language catalogue, subscription and invoicing, and the regression status of findings T-1 through T-12. Method as before: every claim is exercised against a running system with a real PostgreSQL, not read off the documentation. A finding without a reproduction is an opinion.

---

1. Follow-up on the first examination

#	First-round status	Re-examined	Result
T-1	Closed	Adversarial-tenant harness in CI, re-run this round	Holds. Cross-tenant id occupation answers 409, nothing written.
T-2	Closed	Register lookup on the technician path, re-run	Holds on the examined path — but see T-14. The control was enforced at one gate while a second door existed.
T-3	Reduced	Restore drill re-run this round	Holds, and the drill was extended — see T-16. Pre-erasure backup + master key still restores data; the erasure promise remains bounded by backup retention and must be stated to data subjects.
T-4	Closed	Nightly key destruction; integration section 17	Holds. Noted with approval: erasure destroys keys, not rows, so it cannot collide with the append-only triggers or break the new hash chain. The two mechanisms compose without special cases.
T-5	Closed	kalla on model-read values	Holds.
T-6	Closed	Cost parsed from every call site, ≥12	Holds.
T-7	Closed	Append-only on the data-protection records, non-empty-table proof	Holds.
T-8–T-11	Closed	Spec, rule-package signature, CORS, exp	Hold.
T-12	Traded	react-router advisory pair	Unchanged; the carried advisory still does not apply to this build (no RSC, no SSR).
Terraform	Open	—	Still open. Written, never applied. Unvalidated beyond review.
Rev 1 C-4, m-4, m-6	Open	—	Still open (documents, deployment decision, manual review).

---

2. New findings

T-13 · Major — The confidence ceiling accepted an expired calibration as traceable

Observed. sakerhetstak treated any measurement carrying matdonId as traceable. The register lookup (T-2 remediation) derives the calibration date but never records whether the calibration was valid when the measurement was received. Consequence: a measurement taken with an instrument whose calibration lapsed in 2019 enabled the ceiling hög — while the evidence model itself grades that same measurement E1, "calibration missing or expired". The system's two judgments of one fact contradicted each other, and the more permissive one governed the gate.

Why the obvious fix is wrong. Comparing the calibration date against the clock at gate time would make the gate non-deterministic — the same log would close on Tuesday and refuse on Wednesday. The gate module's founding rule is that the same log always yields the same outcome; that rule is what makes a refusal auditable.

Remediation. The fact is frozen when it is still a fact: mätdonsFakta stamps kalibreradVidMatning at receipt, from the register's date against the server's clock at write time. The ceiling requires the stamp to be true. The client cannot inject the field — the server overwrites it unconditionally, the same pattern as the designation and date.

Strict toward legacy, deliberately. A measurement written before the stamp existed does not count as traceable. Same principle the first examination established for claimed designations: what cannot be substantiated does not carry "hög".

Exercised. Integration: an instrument calibrated until 2019-01-01 is accepted (refusing would destroy evidence), stamped false even when the client claimed true, and the register's date travels — not the client's. A currently calibrated instrument stamps true. Unit: the ceiling refuses hög for the expired and the unstamped cases.

T-14 · Major — The supplier protocol path bypassed the instrument register

Observed. The T-2 remediation routed the technician's measurement through the register. The supplier path (POST …/protokoll) did not: a provider profile maps instrumentId straight into matdonId, and the event entered the log carrying an instrument claim no register ever saw. T-2, resurfaced through the side door — and after T-13, an unverified supplier claim would also have fed the confidence ceiling.

The examiner's note on the pattern: the control was implemented at the gate it was found at, not at the resource it protects. This is the second occurrence of that pattern in this codebase (the quality gate itself was once client-only). A control belongs where the data enters, not where the finding happened to be observed.

Remediation. Every protocol measurement now passes mätdonsFakta. The difference from the technician path is deliberate and disclosed: an unknown instrument is degraded, not rejected — a webhook cannot register the instrument on the spot, and discarding the evidence would be worse than grading it honestly. The value is kept, the instrument claims are stripped (grade falls to E1), and the degradation is reported in the response (nedgraderade) instead of happening silently. A known instrument gets the register's designation, date and validity stamp like any other measurement.

Exercised. Integration: a fabricated instrumentId from a supplier is written without any instrument claim and reported as degraded; a registered one carries the register's stamp.

T-15 · Minor — Unsealed operation was visible only as log noise

Observed. Without FORSEGLING_NYCKEL, the chain is written but no closing is ever sealed. The only signals were one warning line per closing in the log stream, and "saknas" in a verification response nobody calls until there is a dispute. A misconfigured production would run unsealed for months and discover it at the worst possible moment.

Remediation. The service now warns once at startup — a line at boot is a decision someone made; a line per closing is noise — and the environment-variable documentation in the server header describes the key and the consequence of omitting it. The per-closing warning remains.

T-16 · Minor — The restore drill predated the chain

Observed. The backup/restore drill (first round, T-3 follow-up) proved that events, provenance, order, attachment hashes, subject keys and the append-only triggers survive a dump-and-restore. It was written before the hash chain existed, so it proved nothing about sekvens, kedjehash, or the seal — and a backup that loses the chain restores a log that never verifies again. The drill was green while measuring the wrong thing, which the first examination twice identified as the most dangerous kind of green.

Remediation. The drill now seeds chained, sealed data and verifies after restore: links present, order present, seal present, and the seal's write-once trigger still biting (an attempted re-seal in the restored database is refused).

---

3. Examined without objection

Recorded so that the next examiner knows what was probed, not assumed.

Area	What was done
Chain and seal design	Reviewed against the revision-3 findings (prefix semantics, false-alarm analysis). The verification response states what it does and does not prove; the OpenAPI description carries the same text. No objection.
Erasure vs. chain	Key destruction leaves rows in place; the chain digests the stored (encrypted) form and verifies after erasure. Composes correctly.
Ten-language catalogue	Closed catalogue, per-language completeness locked by test, invariant structure never translated, non-answer word lists unioned across languages. The procedure text remains unreviewed by trade specialists in every language including English — honestly labeled in the module header and on the public language page.
Numeric round-trip	Chain digests recomputed from stored jsonb, probed with 1e-7 and 0.10000000000000009 (revision 3).
Database-owner sabotage	Trigger dropped, row altered, trigger restored — detected and pointed out, inside and outside the sealed prefix.
Subscription lockout	Read and export remain available in every state, including locked. Verified in integration.

---

4. Conditions of use

The examiner's view of what must hold before each use, unchanged in substance from the panel review but now with the audit's authority:

1. Per-market methodology review. No procedure text is trade-reviewed in any language. The system says so itself; a deployment must not remove that notice before the review exists.
2. Key custody. PERSONNYCKEL_HUVUD and FORSEGLING_NYCKEL in a secrets manager, never in the database or image. The seal is only as external as its key.
3. Erasure statement. The backup-retention bound on erasure (T-3) must be stated to data subjects. It is not closed; it is bounded.
4. External anchoring (RFC 3161 or equivalent) before the seal is presented as evidence against a party disputing the server's clock.

---

5. Test protocol

Suite	Result
Unit	768 passed
Integration (real PostgreSQL)	213 checks, including both sabotage variants, expired-calibration stamping, supplier degradation, post-close append
Restore drill	Extended for chain and seal; passes
End-to-end walkthrough	4/4 cases closed within interaction budget, schema clean
Design conformance	278 checks across the full surface

6. Verdict

The re-examination found no regression in the twelve first-round findings, and the first round's most important structural claims — tenant isolation, register-derived traceability, append-only enforcement — held under re-test. The two Major findings of this round share one root: a control enforced at the gate where it was found, rather than at the resource it protects. T-13 and T-14 are both that error, and both are now closed at the resource.

Applying the product's own vocabulary: the confidence ceiling moves from claimed to validated; the chain and seal remain validated with the external-anchoring caveat; erasure remains tested, bounded by backup retention, and must continue to be stated as such.

---

ALVA-DOC-0007 · Internal engineering review · Not endorsed by any inspection body