#!RFC-AI/2;id=13;draft=4;v=0.4.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=8777c704d4a13068d5259e602f35205ceedc1c7c23703361d595332792bcf5f8
For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software.

RFC-AI 13 — CLOUD DRIVE FILES, COMMENTS AND CONTEXTUAL METADATA
DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE
STATUS: DRAFT FOR CEO REVIEW — ENTIRE RFC-AI SYSTEM UNIMPLEMENTED

1. PURPOSE — WHAT AND WHY
Keep cloud information useful without confusing context with authority. File comments and metadata can communicate context and carry evidence pointers, but must not grant permissions or become an alternative source of truth.

2. INTELLIGENT-WORK DIRECTION
Use the relevant StorageInterface and applicable cloud metadata Standard to attach appropriate contextual information to the correct file and revision. Respect privacy, roles and the limits of provider features.

3. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Use the relevant authorized Interface, component and expressly designated Standard: RFC-AI 7 and StorageInterface. Investigate the complete relevant context before deciding what the assignment means (see RFC-AI 11). A competent worker may discover, invent and improve the necessary methods during implementation; this guiding AI RFC is not required to repeat low-level APIs, algorithms or technology choices. Previous and legacy systems are research evidence only, never an implementation of this draft.

4. EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Use independent DAVG as described in RFC-AI 22 to challenge whether the eventual real-world result meets the objective, not whether the AI RFC looks like a traditional API specification. A missing prerequisite creates an active cross-worker recovery obligation through the worker coordination Interface, not a reason to abandon the task (RFC-AI 20 and 31). Report only verified effects and preserve lessons without reintroducing old operational mistakes.

5. DESIGN CUSTODY
Original subject-specific intended contract: Canonical file identity, revisions, comments as structured bounded JSON, comments for contextual data and discussions, not secret vault/permissions/immutable proof; reconcile RFC-AI 7.
Implementation tasks, legacy-derived candidate methods, proposed data schemas, tests and open engineering questions are kept with this draft's append-only objectives.txt or the responsible Interface/Standard. This RFC has NOT been implemented; it does not approve a deployment or create a new CEO release gate. Rewritten 2026-11-02T20:28:09.285Z.


## HISTORICAL FAILURE EVIDENCE — RESEARCH ONLY; NOT AN RFC-AI IMPLEMENTATION
Historical research: Pre-RFC legacy practices and incidents may be studied for negative examples, but no implementation of this RFC-AI yet exists.
Historical reports have mixed evidence quality; verify primary facts before adopting a claimed root cause. Preserve source provenance and do NOT operationalize retired legacy policies as current RFC authority.

## MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — CEO-DIRECTED PROPOSED FUTURE SYSTEM
MUST-13-01: MUST design its assigned function for actual authorized outcomes, independent evidence, context-first investigation, active recovery and no false implementation claims; refer to the relevant Interfaces and Standards.

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Entire RFC-AI system NOT IMPLEMENTED. Historical systems are independent past research material; no test or existing service may be counted as implementing this RFC-AI.

## DESIGN REVIEW ADDENDUM 2026-11-03 — CLOUD OBJECT AUTHORITY
REQ-AI-13-DRIVE-001: Canonical provider file ID and revision/digest, not title or folder path, MUST decide document identity. SourceRegistry MUST detect duplicates, parent collision, changes of ACL and public/Drive edition drift; conflicting files MUST be marked CONFLICT rather than silently mirrored as equals.
REQ-AI-13-DRIVE-002: Comments are never authenticated human approval or live context merely because the file is accessible. StorageInterface independently verifies provider commit, preserves predecessor custody and reports uncertain outcomes.