docs: record the open-source direction in the status review - #292
Merged
Conversation
The review was written before the direction was decided, so its roadmap listed four engineering issues and ended on an open strategic question. Both are now stale: the question has an answer, and the roadmap has two tracks. WHAT THE MEASURED RESULT ACTUALLY IMPLIES. Every reachable configuration has been measured and none is viable at this venue's cost. That does not mean the project has nothing; it means the strategies were never the asset. The rails are -- nineteen deterministic gates, attestation-based screening that fails closed, and §65.4 qabd encoded as an executable check. There is no other open, auditable Shariah screening engine for spot trading. keel is therefore positioned as that engine, with a reference agent attached to demonstrate it. THE GOVERNANCE QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY THE ARCHITECTURE, and the page now says so where a reader will look for it. Contributors from different madhāhib will disagree about rulings, and ungoverned that fragments a project faster than any technical dispute. keel does not issue rulings: attestation is a human input that fails closed, nothing is derived from price data, and the ruling lives in the attestation rather than the code. A Hanafi and a Shafi'i operator can both use it without the project taking a side. ROADMAP, now two tracks: Track 1, engineering -- the same four issues, but each now shows its milestone. #259 and #260 had no milestone at all; they are the remaining known divergences between what a rule computes, what the backtest models and what the venue does, so Phase 9 was created for them and given the two closed defects of the same class that once voided every performance figure here. Track 2, open source -- fifteen issues across three gated phases. Phase 6 is blocking and unglamorous: the repo is public but legally all-rights-reserved, so nobody may contribute and nobody can find it. The two items that matter most are not code: stating the enforcement/issuance boundary, and deciding the scholarly review path honestly -- including the option of saying plainly that no scholarly review has occurred. An overstated claim in this domain destroys the only thing worth having. The launch is a gate rather than a task, for the same reason. Account figures remain withheld, unchanged and re-verified: this repository is public and nothing in the analysis depends on them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The review was written before the direction was decided. Its roadmap listed four engineering issues and ended on an open strategic question — both now stale.
What changed
A new "Direction" section. The measured result (
0 of 20net-positive) doesn't mean the project has nothing — it means the strategies were never the asset. The rails are. keel is now positioned as an auditable Shariah compliance engine, with a reference agent attached.It also states the governance answer where a reader will look for it: keel does not issue rulings. Attestation is a human input that fails closed, nothing is derived from price data, and the ruling lives in the attestation rather than the code — so a Hanafi and a Shafi'i operator can both use it without the project taking a side.
The roadmap is now two tracks.
#259/#260had none at all — Phase 9 — Execution & backtest fidelity was created for them, alongside the two closed defects of the same class that once voided every performance figure here.The strategic question now has a third answer — let the engine be the contribution — sitting alongside reduce-cost and raise-per-trade-edge.
Unchanged
Account figures remain withheld and re-verified — grep for each returns nothing. The page still parses, and both themes still resolve at token level.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code