Docs·ba2a6d13·Updated Jul 17, 2026·85 ADRs
Back
ADR-082implemented

ADR-082: Reputation Disclosure Boundary

ADR-082: Reputation Disclosure Boundary

Status: Implemented Date: 2026-06-24 Sprint: 112 (contract) → 113 (UI defense-in-depth + two-user validation) Version: 11.18.0 → 11.19.0 → 11.20.0 Supersedes (partially): the graph-node numeric reputation contract from ADR-081

Context

Sprint 111 (ADR-081) made the belonging graph coherent and added graph-node metric redaction, but post-deploy validation exposed a deeper, platform-wide inconsistency:

  1. Terminology drift. The same member, same community, showed "trust 120 · 40 karma" on one surface and "Trust Score 27/100 · Karma 0" on another. These are different models — graph-node relationship weight, normalized 0–100 reputation, raw karma, decayed karma — all rendered as interchangeable "trust"/"karma," making a correct system look unreliable.
  2. Local privacy fix. Sprint 111 redacted non-caller graph-node metrics in React, but governance, trust cards, path intermediates, invitations, leaderboards, and community exports could still reveal another ordinary member's exact reputation. Hiding values in the client is not a durable boundary; the API response itself must be safe.

Decision

Establish one platform-wide reputation disclosure policy, enforced at the API boundary.

Core principle: Karmyq may show how people and communities are connected, but an ordinary member's exact reputation numbers belong only to that member.

Disclosure classes

Every reputation-bearing outward contract belongs to exactly one class:

  • self — exact community-scoped reputation, returned only to the authenticated caller.
  • ordinary_member — authorized identity + structure + a coarse relationship/eligibility explanation. No exact reputation. Strict schemas reject trust_score/karma/*_weight.
  • provider — opted-in public service-provider ratings (an explicit numeric exception; a person's provider role, not their private mutual-aid reputation).
  • community_aggregate — non-identifying community totals, returned only with a ≥5 distinct-member cohort so they cannot be decomposed to an individual.
  • internal — community-admin policy surfaces (decay/evolution config); never carry member rows.

There is no administrator exception for browsing another ordinary member's exact reputation. Governance and community exports follow the same rule.

Enforcement (defense in depth)

  1. Query minimization — do not select another member's metrics when the response doesn't need them.
  2. Explicit projection — map internal rows to strict outward DTOs at the response boundary; never spread database rows into responses.
  3. Strict shared schemas — @karmyq/shared reputationDisclosure Zod schemas (self, ordinary-member graph/path/governance, provider, aggregate) are .strict(), so an accidental row spread fails projection tests rather than leaking.
  4. Cross-user tests — authenticate as one member, seed another member's non-zero sentinel values, assert they are absent from the response.
  5. CI disclosure gate — tests/fixtures/reputation-disclosure-inventory.json + services/registry.json#reputation_disclosure are cross-checked in both directions by tests/regression/reputation-disclosure-gate.test.ts; a new reputation-bearing endpoint cannot ship unclassified, schema-less, or test-less, and protected fixtures are scanned for forbidden keys at any depth.

New canonical self contract

GET /reputation/me/community-summary?community_id= returns one SelfCommunityReputation (scope + reputation score/tier + decayed karma/trend + recent activity, with scale/window/timestamps). Profile, Home, and My Network consume this single read instead of recombining karma + trust + graph fields. UI copy standardizes on Reputation score (0–100) and Current karma (decayed).

Compatibility behavior

  • Cross-user reads of :userId reputation/config endpoints return ADR-074 404 REPUTATION_NOT_FOUND (not 403 — we do not confirm a user has reputation data). No admin exception on trust-config.
  • Community aggregates require active membership + ≥5 cohort, else 404 AGGREGATE_NOT_AVAILABLE.
  • The member leaderboard is retired: 410 REPUTATION_LEADERBOARD_RETIRED, no rows.
  • GET /trust/edge is retired: 410 TRUST_EDGE_ENDPOINT_RETIRED (internal getTrustEdge() kept).
  • Person graph nodes/links, trust cards, paths, invitations, governance, and exports carry identity, structure, and a qualitative relationship_state — never another member's exact metrics.

Relationship state

Member-facing graph contracts expose relationship_state (strong | warm | fading | nearly_forgotten, derived from the ADR-070 decay tier) instead of raw/effective edge weights. Exact edge weights and the numeric path strength remain internal (feed ranking still uses them).

Context-bound connection visibility (Sprint 116 / ADR-084)

An authenticated member may see another person's named connection topology only while deciding whether to help on a reachable request, or while either participant reviews an ordinary/provider offer on that request. The request and offer records derive both participant IDs server-side; there is no arbitrary target-user route, member search, profile graph, or administrator bypass.

This ordinary_member contract adds a coarse bond_depth on disclosed edges:

  • forming — fewer than two recorded completed interactions;
  • growing — at least two recorded completed interactions;
  • established — at least four recorded completed interactions.

Those bands intentionally disclose ordinal floors (growing ≥2, established ≥4). That is a real, documented privacy trade-off made to give line thickness a legible history meaning. Exact counts, raw/effective weights, timestamps, karma, reputation, exchange content, and numeric path strength remain forbidden. Brightness carries no relationship meaning.

Defense in depth — UI layer (Sprint 113 / PR A)

PR A (Sprint 112) closed the boundary in the API contract. Sprint 113 PR A makes the boundary true on the screen — the client must render the safe contract correctly, not reintroduce a leak or a NaN where a field was intentionally omitted. Three rules, all enforced by frontend TDD tests:

  1. No NaN on a possibly-absent field (BUG-025). Governance/stewardship payloads project each member row to identity + a coarse eligibility_reason only — no trust_score/karma. The UI must never Math.round/Number/.toFixed an omitted field, and never paper over absence with || 0 (a fake zero is itself a disclosure anti-pattern). Omit the element or show a qualitative label (e.g. governance eligible-members now read "Eligible · established community relationships"; role-holders show identity + role with no trust number). Community aggregates that the contract still returns (e.g. maturity.avg_trust_score) are unaffected.
  2. One canonical self read (BUG-024/026). The member's own profile reads its reputation from the single GET /reputation/me/community-summary contract — never by separately recombining getMyKarma + getTrustScore, which was the dual-source mismatch that showed a member different numbers on profile vs. the community view. Profile copy standardizes on Current Karma and Reputation Score (0–100). Scope of this PR: profile.tsx is migrated. LeftSidebar keeps its direct self trust read (it must also serve the no-community "overall" case the summary endpoint can't); its number is consistent because it reads the same underlying trust score. The community member-topology surface's per-member getTrustScore reads (useCommunityData) are cross-user and now correctly receive 404 REPUTATION_NOT_FOUND from the boundary.
  3. Restore the map zoom, single owner (BUG-027). Every belonging-graph surface routes through one wrapper (BelongingGraph) → one renderer (TrustGraphHEB). Zoom controls (in/out/reset) mount only inside the renderer and are gated by enableZoom (now default-on in the wrapper), so no surface double-mounts controls. The zoom behavior pins an explicit .extent() so the button-driven scaleBy/transform stay deterministic and testable in jsdom.

These are validated by a two-user check (non-zero sentinels) before ADR-082 flips to Implemented.

Consequences

  • Positive: one consistent, truthful self-facing language; a durable API-first privacy boundary; a regression gate that prevents new leaks; provider accountability and community health preserved as explicit exceptions.
  • Costs / trade-offs: other members' exact reputation is no longer visible anywhere (intended); the belonging graph shows structure, not node scores; a one-release compatibility window returns 410/404 for retired/cross-user endpoints before old clients are fully migrated.
  • No database migration and no reputation-math rewrite — ADR-037/038/039 scoring, ADR-011 decay, governance thresholds, vote weights, matching, and background jobs are unchanged; only naming, projection, authorization, and client consumption changed.

Delivery

Two ordered PRs: PR A (this) ships the API-enforced boundary + CI gate + canonical self summary

  • frontend contract alignment. PR B adds My Network navigation prominence, the Home preview, the shared self-summary UI, and retires the leaderboard UI — built only on PR A's safe contracts.