OFB-SA-001 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Documentation integrity
Public methodology versions had drifted from the runtime
Meaning: Readers could not reliably connect the public methodology surface to the rule versions recorded in a completed report.
Remediation: The homepage, methodology index, changelog, and trust record now consume shared release metadata. API methodology metadata also follows the roadmap rules actually generated.
Fresh verification condition: Automated tests require public trust surfaces to consume the shared release source and require API roadmap metadata to match the generated roadmap.
State: corrected and regression checked
OFB-SA-002 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Machine-readable discovery integrity
Machine-readable llms.txt freshness and no-score wording had drifted
Meaning: The file still carried an older update date and described the methodology as including scoring even though the current product explicitly produces no aggregate score.
Remediation: llms.txt is now generated from the shared release metadata, links the public trust artifacts, and describes the current no-score methodology accurately.
Fresh verification condition: Production validation requires the current review date, report contract, self-audit links, and no scoring claim in llms.txt.
State: corrected and regression checked
OFB-SA-003 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Accessibility and brand trust
Dark trust sections inherited illegible page-level text colors
Meaning: The homepage FAQ and audit-boundary sections could render dark navy text on a near-black background, making important limitations difficult or impossible to read.
Remediation: A final shared dark-surface contract now sets explicit navy backgrounds, white headings, light body text, muted light secondary text, and accessible border colors for both sections.
Fresh verification condition: Regression tests require the shared selectors and calculate contrast ratios of at least 4.5:1 for body text and 3:1 for headings against the dark surface.
State: corrected and regression checked
OFB-SA-004 · Observed 2026-08-04 · Evidence timestamp integrity
Report timestamps used ambiguous locale-dependent formatting
Meaning: A timestamp such as 04/08/2026 could be interpreted as either 4 August or 8 April, and the displayed value did not identify its timezone.
Remediation: Completed reports now format checked and generated timestamps as YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss UTC and retain the exact ISO instant in the title attribute.
Fresh verification condition: Regression tests reject toLocaleString-based report timestamps and require the explicit UTC formatter and ISO timestamp pattern.
State: corrected and regression checked