Canary Functional Decomp — Gap Ledger

Findings from the GRO-608 next-level consistency pass across all 11 completed functional decomposition articles. Five criteria checked per article; gaps graded P1 (blocking / load-bearing), P2 (structural), P3 (narrative completeness). Modules L and W remain on hold and are not included.

Criterion 1 — Cross-Module Dependency Symmetry

Eight of eleven modules fully reciprocate their dependency claims. Three do not (D, J, Q) — plus N partially.

P1 — Load-bearing asymmetries

Gap	Source claim	Missing reciprocal	Action
J ↔ P	J.8a: P.6.3 promotion calendar is load-bearing to J forecasting	P lists J in companions but does NOT assert P.6.3 is architecturally critical to J	Add explicit reciprocal contract statement in P.6.3 or P contracts section
A ↔ Q	A.3.1: asset-item registry provides allow-list exclusion consumed by Q detection rules	Q lists A in companions but does NOT claim dependency on A.3.1	Q must reciprocate that Q.2 detection rules depend on A.3.1 filtering

P2 — Structural asymmetries

Gap	Source claim	Missing reciprocal	Action
D ↔ A	A.2.1: reads D.6.1 SOH snapshot + D.6.3 TRANSFER-VARIANCE	D lists A but does not state D.6.1/D.6.3 are consumed by A	Add D contract statement for A read-dependency
N ↔ Q	N.5: provides LP threshold substrate + drawer-session context to Q	Q lists N in companions but does not reciprocate N.5 contracts	Q must reciprocate N.5 as upstream contract provider
F ↔ J	F.5.2: PO cost-flow contract consumed by J replenishment costing	J lists F but does not reciprocate F.5.2 centrality	J must add explicit reciprocal reference to F.5.2
T ↔ D	T type-routes XFER documents to D via T.4.7	D lists T as downstream but does not reciprocate T.4.7 type-routing contract	D must explicitly reciprocate T.4.7 in D.6.2 or contracts section

Criterion 2 — L4 Pointers Complete

Systemic finding: All non-canonical modules lack L4 stubs or → TBD pointers on most L3 processes. Module Q and its rule catalog companion are the sole complete examples. The gap is structural — these modules were written to L3 depth with an implicit assumption that L4 would be a later authoring pass. That pass is now explicit.

Module	L3 count	L4 status	Specific gaps
A	12	✗ None	All 12 L3 processes (A.1.1–A.1.5, A.2.1–A.2.4, A.3.1–A.3.4) missing stubs
C	26	✗ None	All 26 L3 processes (M.1–M.5) missing stubs
D	29	✗ None	All 29 L3 processes (D.1–D.5) missing stubs
F	28	✗ None	All 28 L3 processes (F.1–F.6) missing stubs
J	~40	⚠ Mostly complete	O.1.6 (like-item forecasting): no L4 stub; O.2.6 (lead-time variance): deferred "v2.1" but no concrete L4 commitment
N	27	✓ Complete	All reference canary-module-n-device.md + §6.5
P	~35	⚠ Partial	P.2.1 (promotional window inference): no SDD crosswalk; P.4.5 (cold-start elasticity): ASSUMPTION-P-07 with no algorithm; P.5.3 (linked-item price deps): no L4 schema
Q	38	✓ Complete	Canonical — rule catalog + SDK + SDD cross-references throughout
R	~30	✗ None	All L3 processes missing stubs
S	~35	✗ None	All L3 processes missing stubs
T	~40	✗ None	All L3 processes missing stubs

Resolution applied in this pass: → TBD stubs added to all silent L3 processes in A, C, D, F, R, S, T. O.1.6 and O.2.6 upgraded to explicit TBD with author note. P.2.1, P.4.5, P.5.3 given algorithm-stub templates.

Criterion 3 — User Stories Comprehensive

Module	Stories present	Gaps identified
A	14	Asset-zone reassignment across store locations; reclassification triggered by unplanned retail sale of a fixture item
C	32	Seasonal tier reclassification (retail→wholesale during spring contractor ramp); credit-hold override workflow; tier inconsistency between historical and current transactions
D	38	Hub-and-spoke transfer with intermediate stop; transfer reversal before destination receives; split-transfer recommendation across multiple understocked locations; transfer audit context differs by actor (warehouse mgr vs store mgr)
F	41	PayCode creation during onboarding (post-bootstrap new tender type); tax-code line-level override; gift-card partial redemption (insufficient balance); multi-currency AR transaction; replacement-card balance reassignment on card loss/damage
J	68	✓ Complete
N	33	Multi-device enrollment / workstation-to-station mapping (N.2.3); per-store config drift detection at scale across multi-location tenant
P	44	Stacked promotions (multiple active promos on same item); cross-category promotion spillover; markdown execution failure/rollback (buyer reverts markdown in Counterpoint, Canary must detect and sync)
Q	71	✓ Complete
R	47	Profile-extension deferred to v3 (explicitly flagged); cross-company customer collision detection (C.5.3 scenario)
S	52	Owl eCommerce integration implicit in S.5.2 — no explicit investigator-surface user story
T	64	Offline-mode document handling absent (ASSUMPTION-T-05 exists but no corresponding user story)

Criterion 4 — Counterpoint Substrate Table Present

Module	Status	Detail
A	✓ by design	Derived module; no own endpoints; substrate entirely from S. Intentional posture documented.
C	✗ Missing	Reads AR_CUST, Customer_OpenItems, AR_CUST_CTL (from R) — enumerated in text, not tabulated
D	✗ Missing	7 inventory endpoints (Inventory_ByLocation, Items_ByLocation, Item_Inventory, InventoryLocations, InventoryControl, InventoryCost, InventoryEC) listed in executive summary, not mapped to L2 areas
F	✗ Missing	~12 endpoints (PayCodes, TaxCodes, GiftCards, NSPTransaction, Tokenize, Customer OpenItems, etc.) in text, no tabular mapping
J	✓ Complete	L3-to-substrate reads mapped; document type routing explicit (PO/PREQ/RECVR/RTV)
N	✓ Complete	Store, Station, DeviceConfig, Workgroup, Tokenize enumerated per section
P	✗ Missing	No endpoint-mapping table at all. IM_ITEM and PS_DOC_LIN_PRICE referenced in prose only
Q	✓ Complete	14-row CRDM table; canonical format
R	✗ Missing	Endpoint reads present in text; no tabular mapping
S	✗ Missing	Substrate reads in text; no tabular mapping
T	✗ Missing	Transaction pipeline substrate described narratively; no mapping table

Modules needing substrate tables added: C, D, F, P, R, S, T (7 of 11).

Criterion 5 — Canary Detection Hook Identified

Module	Status	Detail
A	N/A	Observer-only module; no detection surface. Contracts feed Q but A does not itself detect.
C	✗ Partial	M.4 defines rules (B2B-CREDIT-01, B2B-AR-01, etc.) but rule catalog ownership unclear — not cross-referenced to Q rule families or Chirp ingest point
D	✓ Complete	D.4.5 → Q alert with D.4.1 evidence; D.6.3 TRANSFER-VARIANCE → Q-IS-03; D.6.5 UNATTRIBUTED-MOVEMENT → Q anomaly correlation
F	✓ Complete	F.7.3 → Q-TC-01; F.7.8 → Q-TM-02; F.7.2 → Q-TC-01; F.7.1 → Q tender-mix rules
J	✓ Complete	O.6 receiving + O.7 RTV → Q-IS-01/02/04; O.4 recommendation state machine; O.8 contracts explicit
N	✗ Gap	N.4 supplies LP threshold substrate to Q but no statement of which Chirp rule family each N L2 area triggers
P	✗ Gap	P.2.6 (undeclared promotions) mentions "event published to Q" but does not name Q rule family; P.6.7 tangential; elasticity signal injection into O.1.4 not explicitly named as Chirp input
Q	✓ Complete	Canonical — 10 rule families, all with detection hook mappings
R	✗ Missing	No detection-hook registry
S	✗ Missing	No detection-hook registry
T	✗ Missing	No detection-hook registry

Priority Matrix

Priority	Item	Modules affected
P1	Reciprocate J↔P promotional-demand isolation contract	J, P
P1	Reciprocate A↔Q asset-item registry filtering dependency	A, Q
P2	Add Counterpoint substrate mapping tables	C, D, F, P, R, S, T
P2	Add detection hook sections (name Chirp rule family per L2)	C, N, P, R, S, T
P2	Reciprocate D↔A and N↔Q and F↔J and T↔D structural contracts	D, N, J, T
P2	L4 stubs (`→ TBD`) on all silent L3 processes	A, C, D, F, R, S, T
P3	Add missing user stories (enumerated per module above)	A, C, D, F, N, P, R, S, T
P3	Clarify M.4 rule ownership vs Q rule catalog	C
P3	Make P.4.5 cold-start elasticity algorithm explicit	P

Generated: GRO-608 consistency pass, 2026-04-26. Canonical reference: canary-module-q-functional-decomposition.md.