#!RFC-AI/2;id=23;draft=5;v=0.5.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=1c394384ba65cbbeb3e27e62aa82ad90dd4945919547e4c8416a2935aaacc9e3
For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software.

RFC-AI 23 — CLOUD STORAGE CONTRACTS, INTEGRITY AND PRESERVATION
DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE
STATUS: DRAFT FOR CEO REVIEW — ENTIRE RFC-AI SYSTEM UNIMPLEMENTED

1. PURPOSE — WHAT AND WHY
Preserve content fidelity and trustworthy cloud custody. Storage correctness is demonstrated by the right authorized object being saved and verified, not by describing a file operation or repeating redundant checks.

2. INTELLIGENT-WORK DIRECTION
Use StorageInterface and applicable file-format/storage Standards for provider-specific writes, concurrency, preservation and verification. Never substitute a local shadow master for the authorized canonical resource.

3. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Use the relevant authorized Interface, component and expressly designated Standard: StorageInterface, RFC-AI 1, 7 and 38. 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: Drive canonical objects, revision conflict control, atomic update where supported, UTF-8 CRLF txt, no alternate masters, preservation and rollback as nonoperational historical artifacts.
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 context: Large cloud transfers filled caches or failed after partial transmission; resumable operations lacked authoritative final-byte confirmation.
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-23-01: MUST use StorageInterface as the sole authorized corporate storage execution owner, including direct editing, physical/integrity safeguards, verified saves, retries and concurrency.
MUST-23-02: MUST NOT require that the parent AI RFC recite the Interface implementation details.

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.


## ADDITIONAL MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — 2026-11-02 (PROPOSED, NOT IMPLEMENTED)
Historical trigger: legacy materials repeatedly confused authored progress, scripts and document content with real observed execution; this is research evidence, not proof of any new RFC implementation.
MUST: StorageInterface MUST enforce all storage-side prohibitions in the StorageInterface project objectives: no stale-owner commit, no duplicate committed effect, no unchecked revision, no fiction of multi-Interface atomicity, no ambiguous status presented as verified.
MUST consider the concrete literal behavior of competent AI workers and enforce required hard safeguards by simple, separately running Interface logic where an actual boundary exists. MUST not delegate Interface internal details back to this guiding document. MUST preserve the requirement in relevant top-level objectives.txt and independently verify that future implementation satisfies it. New requirements here remain draft, not live controls.

## DESIGN REVIEW ADDENDUM 2026-11-03 — STORAGE TRANSACTION CUSTODY
REQ-AI-23-STORE-001: StorageInterface exclusively owns provider-side save, preservation, revision/owner fencing, verified commit and ambiguous write reconciliation. Transport MUST retry genuinely missing expected bytes, but must not reproduce an already committed external effect.
REQ-AI-23-STORE-002: Exact canonical provider ID, parent ID, revision and digest beat filename/path; a mounted file or local cache is not proof of remote durability. Multi-service success is a coordinator claim only after independent effect reconciliation.

DESIGN CORRECTION RESTORE-20 — Verified backup, recovery, external commitments and independent communication
RATIONALE: GitLab demonstrated non-restorable backups; Atlassian lost contact routes while restoring site identities. A backup filename or preserved copy alone does not guarantee recovery.
REQUIRED FUTURE BEHAVIOR: Future storage and recovery Standards MUST specify independent restore exercises with exact object ID/revision, full content digest, ACL, linked dependent entities and provider state. Preserve original IDs where possible, record old/new mappings when not, and independently verify representative read/functional actions after restore. Emergency operator identity, contact data and recovery channel MUST be available outside the failed namespace or host. Destructive target types must be checked at effect boundary and prefer recoverable deletion. Lost remote commit acknowledgments require StorageInterface reconciliation before retry.
ADVERSARIAL DESIGN ACCEPTANCE: Simulate deletion of website with its contact/identity database; verify alternate emergency contact/recovery and exact-ID restoration across related services. A saved backup that cannot restore complete domain behavior MUST fail acceptance.
SCOPE: Proposed requirement and acceptance test, NOT actual implementation or verified enforcement.