Pass 3 inventory
Step 1 only. Nothing changed. Four audits requested, plus what the brief assumed exists and does not. Counted 2026-08-03 against commitc78ecef. 229 .mdx files.
Before the audits: three of the four structural premises do not hold here
There is one tree, not two:
protocol/, licenses/, sdk/, endpoints/, security/. Every one of the 229 files is reachable from docs.json, with no orphans and no dangling entries. So the two-tree table has nothing to compare and the “one tree” proposal is not a merge, it is a restructure of the tree that exists.
This is the third pass in a row where the brief has described a repository state that is not this one. Worth resolving before pass 4: it is possible there is a second repository, or a branch, that these briefs are written against.
The typo that is real is in the second file named:
security/changelog.mdx:3-description: 'Official changelogs of teh Trusset protocol.'
Audit 1: banned subject-verb pairs
Rule: Trusset never operates, runs, offers, provides credit, lends, extends, manages a market, holds, takes collateral, or is counterparty. Every occurrence found, including the ones that are correct and must not be touched.Violations, ordered by exposure
Thirteen. Numbers 1 to 3 are in
docs.json and therefore render into the <head> of all 229 pages.
Correct, and must not be “fixed”
These match the banned pattern textually but state the opposite. All are locked negative capability claims from pass 1.
The MiCA register is the one place the brief explicitly permits “Trusset operates”. No page currently says it, so nothing to fix and one claim available to use.
The good news
The endpoint reference bodies are clean. Across 191 endpoint pages, the operator-facing language already says “you”, “the market admin”, “the liquidation operator”, “the issuer or their transfer agent”. The positioning problem is concentrated indocs.json, the two protocol/ overview pages, and the landing page. That is roughly six files, not two hundred.
Audit 2: stale relayer and Trusset-side signing
No page describes Trusset-side signing or relaying. The write path is documented correctly everywhere.endpoints/introduction.mdx:71 states endpoints “return an unsigned payload built against the target contract. You sign it with your registered wallet and broadcast it yourself.” Commit 8ba8112 did that work before pass 1.
What remains is two legacy identifiers in live API surface, unchanged since pass 1 because renaming them breaks integrator code:
Both glosses are accurate. Both names are misleading because no relayer exists. This is a product decision, not a docs one.
Unrelated, do not confuse:
keeperRelayer in licenses/commodities/ is an on-chain configuration address for a customer’s own automation, with its own “receives no implicit on-chain privileges” disclaimer.
Nothing to log per-endpoint for confirmation, because nothing asserts the old behaviour. The open per-endpoint question from pass 2 is a different one and still stands: ten stock-lending write endpoints do not document the txHash confirm call. See docs/OPEN-QUESTIONS.md item 3.
Audit 3: “Coming Soon”
No standalone “Coming Soon” page exists. Five inline markers do:
Two of these are roadmap promises on Tier 1 pages, which is a separate question from whether the wording is tidy.
Audit 4: naming
”Tokenization” in external-facing language
"Stock” where the product is asset-agnostic
Navigation groups: “Stock Tokenization”, “Stock Lending”, “Stock Token License”, “Stock Orderbook License”. Directory paths, which per the brief must not change:endpoints/stock-tokenization/ (29 pages), endpoints/stock-lending/ (51), endpoints/stock-trading/ (29), licenses/stocks/, licenses/stock-orderbook/. API base paths /lending-stocks/api/... likewise stay.
That means 109 endpoint pages will have a title and heading saying “asset” while their URL says “stock”. The brief’s remedy is one explanatory line per section, modelled on how the lending documentation handles the LendingMarket identifier. Note that no such sentence exists in this repository to copy; it was logged as absent in pass 1.
The three products, against what exists
Top-level navigation today is Protocol, Licenses, SDK, API Reference, Security. None of the three products is a top-level concept.
One thing already correct on the earning side: the word yield appears zero times, and there are no second-person return promises anywhere. The existing wording is share-based and already close to what section 12 requires: “The depositor receives LP shares proportional to their contribution, and those shares accrue value as borrowers pay interest.” Whatever section 12 says will still win, but the current text is not fighting it.
What I need before Step 2
- The
/new/and/products/question. Is there another repository or branch these briefs are written against? Three passes have now named files that are not here. - Section 12 of the lending documentation, verbatim. It is the binding text for the earning page and I do not have it.
- Sections 1 and 13, for the operating-versus-software sentence, so the landing page matches the regulatory text rather than paraphrasing it.
- The claim-based adoption flow, for the market operator page. The brief says to ask before writing it, and I am asking.
- Confirmation on the two uncleared claims so I can keep them out: the two licensed German crypto securities registrars, and any named partner. Both are listed as pending and neither will appear until you say otherwise.