docs: clarify recording_mode is a retention dial, not a coverage claim - #205
Merged
telleroutlook merged 1 commit intoAug 7, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The field description said only "How this run's evidence was captured" which is ambiguous — it could be read as a claim about observation scope (coverage) rather than capture depth (retention). Expanded description in the JSON schema and AEP-OTEL mapping table to explicitly state: - recording_mode is a RETENTION DIAL: how much of what was observed the producer chose to keep (depth) - It is NOT a coverage claim: it says nothing about what the monitor was configured or able to observe (scope) - Observation scope is conveyed separately via configSource/tracePolicy Motivated by in-toto/attestation#557 where the ambiguity caused recording_mode to be described as a coverage claim, which is incorrect.
telleroutlook
deleted the
fix/recording-mode-clarify-retention-vs-coverage
branch
August 7, 2026 14:04
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
The
recording_modefield description ("How this run's evidence was captured") was ambiguous — it could be read as a claim about observation scope (coverage) rather than capture depth (retention). This led tovalidationbeing described as "full coverage" in an external discussion, which is the opposite of its actual meaning.Fix
Expanded description in two places:
schemas/aep/aep-record.schema.json— verbose description now explicitly states:configSourceandtracePolicydocs/AEP-OTEL-MAPPING.md— table cell expanded with the same retention-vs-coverage distinction.Context
Motivated by in-toto/attestation#557 where the ambiguity caused
recording_modeto be described as a coverage claim in a standards discussion.Tests
conformance.py: 19 schemas OK.bun test: 18/18 pass.