Date: 2025-12-31
reviewer: SRN Governance Committee (Simulation)

1. Executive Summary

The Governance Committee has reviewed the Product Team Response to AI Analysis (v1), which proposes a strategic pivot based on risk assessments from Gemini 3 (DeepResearch) and ChatGPT (o1).

Verdict: Conditionally Approved. The Committee strongly endorses the shift towards pragmatism ("Worse is Better") but raises concerns about preserving the core "Trust" value proposition during this simplification.

2. Key Findings & Directives

2.1 Regarding "Worse is Better" (Priority 1)

  • Assessment: The Committee agrees that enforcing a strict "Semantic Web" ontology is a proven path to failure. Simplifying the core protocol to HTTP POST + JSON is the correct decision for adoption.
  • Directive: However, Metadata Standardization cannot be abandoned entirely. Rather than a global ontology, the team must define a "Minimum Viable Context" (MVC)—a tiny, mandatory set of JSON-LD fields (e.g., sender, created_at, type) that ensures interoperability without complexity. "No schema" is as dangerous as "Too much schema."

2.2 Regarding "Onion Routing" (Priority 2)

  • Assessment: The proposal to expose routing headers (x-weba-routing) while encrypting the payload is strategically sound. It balances privacy with the reality of CDN/Edge caching.
  • Directive: The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for these exposed headers is mandatory. Even metadata (e.g., "User A messaged Clinic B") can bear high risk. Using Billed IDs (Pseudonyms) or Rotunda Routing in the public headers is strongly recommended to preventing traffic analysis.

2.3 Regarding "Utility First" Marketing (Priority 3)

  • Assessment: Positioning SRN as a "PPAP Replacement" is a brilliant tactical move. It solves an immediate, tangible pain point for Japanese enterprises.
  • Directive: Ensure legal compliance. Replacing PPAP requires meeting specific e-Seal standards. The team must verify if the simplified JSON signature meets the "Advanced Electronic Signature" criteria under Japanese/EU law.

2.4 Regarding Transparency (Priority 4)

  • Assessment: Mandating Source Maps for WASM is good, but insufficient.
  • Directive: We require a "Binary Transparency Log" mechanism. Just publishing source maps isn't enough; we need cryptographic proof that the running WASM binary matches the published source. Initiate a feasibility study on "Reproducible Builds" validation within the SRN ecosystem.

3. Strategic Warning: The "Simplicity" Trap

While "Worse is Better" drives adoption, Trust is SRN's core product. If simplification allows for easy spoofing or "loose" verification that users don't notice, the platform becomes worthless.

  • Guardrail: The "Permissive Reader" (Priority 4 in Product Team Response) must NEVER be permissive about Signature Validity. It can ignore unknown fields, but it must strictly reject invalid signatures. "Approximately correct" crypto is fatal.

4. Next Steps

  1. revise the Protocol Specification (v2.6) to include the "Minimum Viable Context".
  2. Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment on the proposed "Onion Routing" headers.
  3. Prototype the "PPAP Replacement" tool (possibly a standalone CLI or Web app) as the spearhead for adoption.

Signed, SRN Governance Committee