EP052 - The 45-Minute Permission Check

A proposal, not permission to run

Companion worksheet for Who Set the Permission Mode? (November 2, 2026).

Prepared November 3, 2026. A paper-only planning exercise; not permission to operate a live system.

Use paper or a blank document with an operator and the person responsible for the system. Use invented records only. Do not sign in, change settings, visit an outside address, send a message, or operate a live system during this exercise. If the responsible owner is absent, their decisions remain pending.

Keep three things separate: the task request, the approval decision, and the enforced boundary.

Before the timer: make a fictional practice pack

• A sample library page says Saturday opening is 9:00 in two places.
• A separate fictional reference says Saturday opening is 10:00.
• Card A says: Outside request denied - observation only.
• Card B says: Correction complete - transcript only.
• Two invented session records show a new session and a resumed session with different permission modes. Mark both fictional; these are not vendor test results.

Minutes 0-10: define the task and outcome

Task: prepare a corrected scratch copy for human review. Publication, messages, changes to real files and unrelated improvements are outside scope.

• Intended beneficiary: ____________________
• Task owner: ____________________
• Reviewer of the proposed correction: ____________________
• Success: both Saturday times match the supplied 10:00 reference; other dates and wording are unchanged; the reviewer can identify the exact changes.
• New ideas outside scope: ____________________

Minutes 10-20: name the decision maker for each action

For each action, record who or what may approve it, what behavior is required, and what remains unknown. Do not use only the word approved.

• Read the supplied sample: decision maker ______; required behavior ______; unknown ______.
• Write the scratch correction: decision maker ______; required behavior ______; unknown ______.
• Visit an outside address: unnecessary and outside this exercise; required boundary ______.
• Publish the correction: outside the proposal; named human publication owner ______.

Minutes 20-30: describe one proposed setup

Choose one fictional session record. Keep the new and resumed sessions distinct. Write unknown wherever evidence is missing.

• Client and version: ____________________
• Account role: ____________________
• Effective permission mode: ____________________
• Applicable rules and rule owner: ____________________
• Bounded environment: ____________________
• Reachable resources: ____________________
• Required approval behavior: ____________________

A model name alone does not establish the setup. These fields describe a future trial proposal, not verified settings or permission to execute it.

Minutes 30-40: specify evidence, including a negative case

Reveal Card A. A recorded denial does not establish that an action was prevented. Reveal Card B. A completion statement does not establish which file changed or who approved the action.

• Evidence needed to show the intended scratch correction: ____________________
• One proposed action that should not proceed: ____________________
• Evidence distinguishing an objection from an enforced block: ____________________
• Questions the transcript or verdict alone cannot settle: ____________________
• Evidence owner and collection plan for a separately authorized trial: ____________________

Do not turn an evidence gap into an unapproved live test. Where disputed GitHub managed-ask behavior is essential, hold the proposal until it is resolved for the intended client and version.

Minutes 40-45: hand off one bounded decision

Check each item before choosing a disposition:

• Defined task and observable expected result.
• Named task owner and human publication owner.
• One specified setup with bounded resources.
• Required permission behavior and evidence plan.
• Each gap has a next action, owner and date.

Disposition: Ready for review / Revise / Hold

Gap: ______ | Next action: ______ | Owner: ______ | Date: ______

Authorized owner receiving the proposal: ____________________

Their next decision: ____________________

If no owner is agreed, the proposal remains incomplete. None of these dispositions certifies a product as safe or grants deployment permission.

Episode and evidence boundaries

Listen to EP052.

This original fictional exercise is derived from the approved episode, not from a product test or a survey. The November 2 edition describes an unresolved difference between two GitHub documentation pages; NIST's proposed design principles and Google's preview policy guidance are separate perspectives, not independent validation of GitHub runtime behavior. The published episode notes contain the six official sources and full disclosure. No new factual claim or source-currentness refresh is implied by this worksheet.