feedback_inherit_v2_international_from_day_one

The rule: INHERIT v2 and InheritKit are international standards and products. They must cover every jurisdiction, every succession regime, every tax treatment, every faith tradition. Claude must NOT frame decisions as “E&W first then extend” — the architecture is international; sequencing may happen to be E&W-initial for commercial tractability but that does NOT make E&W the reference case.

Why: Rich flagged this 2026-04-24 after reviewing A-24 Seq G1 (“Wills E&W minimal at position 3”). Today’s session and prior sessions have repeatedly defaulted to E&W-first framing (“per-jurisdiction InheritKit crate pattern validated after E&W”; “Option D jurisdictions = E&W + Scotland + Swiss”; “A-17 SRI-2 3/5 UK targets”; etc.). Left unchecked, this bias contaminates the architecture — partners reading the specs see E&W-centric assumptions; standards-body reviewers see a UK product with international pretensions rather than a genuinely international standard.

Context: v6.6 (openinherit.org’s live standard at ~/openinherit/code-standard/) already has 21 extensions — UK-EW, US, AU/NZ, Brazil, EU Succession, Israel, Japan, Scotland, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Latin America, PRC China, Switzerland, UAE + Africa Customary, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish + Singapore/Malaysia hybrid. ~8,185 LOC of extension content. This is the real scope INHERIT covers. v2 must preserve or exceed this.

How to apply:

1 — Framing in new writing:

• Use “Phase-1 initial scope is E&W because it’s the smallest tractable unit, not because E&W is the reference case”
• When describing Core primitives, do NOT enumerate E&W fields first + “plus Scotland/Swiss extensions”; enumerate the international abstraction + examples from multiple jurisdictions
• When describing Catala rule-packs / InheritKit crates, do not privilege E&W in the crate-naming narrative (@inheritkit/capacity-gb-eng is one of many, not “the main one”)
• When writing partner-model / BD / marketing docs, explicit international framing: “every jurisdiction / succession regime / tax treatment / faith tradition”

2 — Entity-module boundaries are provisional, not sacred:

• Claude MUST proactively flag opportunities to move entities between modules when v2 architecture shows signs of strain
• “Improving the way INHERIT is organised” is an explicit goal, not a defensive position
• No hesitation moving entities — the A-24 sequence lock does NOT freeze module boundaries; it freezes AUTHORING ORDER
• If during Phase-1 authoring (or Phase 1.5 stress-test) an entity turns out to be better-housed elsewhere, MOVE IT and log as a new amendment (A-25+)

3 — Phase 1.5 is the forcing function:

• After Phase-1 position 7 (Probate E&W) completes, immediately begin Phase 1.5 v6.6 non-E&W stress-test per A-25
• Import v6.6 content from each of the 21 extensions systematically
• Identify where entities need to move between modules; where Core primitives need to expand; where facet stacks need additional values; where alignment axioms need revision
• Only after Phase 1.5 validates v2 roundtrips v6.6’s international content can v2 Phase-1 be declared complete
• Phase 1.5 is roughly 4-6 weeks; not optional

4 — Review already-locked decisions for E&W-first contamination:

• A-3 Capacity (core data-model + per-jurisdiction rule-packs) — check whether Core data-model actually generalises to non-common-law jurisdictions
• A-7 Trust regime_discriminator + recognition_status — check whether Civil-law + Islamic trust/waqf regimes fit the split cleanly
• A-10 A-Opens #3 Islamic-finance placement — currently deferred; under international-from-day-one framing may deserve earlier placement
• A-17 SRI-2 3/5 UK + 1 Scotland + 1 Swiss — partner-target list for international BD needs non-UK targets represented
• Jurisdiction scope in Option D (E&W + Scotland + Swiss) — the architectural-scope IS three jurisdictions in Phase-1 build; the SEQUENCE happens to be E&W-first; reviewers should see the three-jurisdiction scope, not E&W-centric framing

5 — Memory cross-references:

• project_inherit_international_iso_intent (Phase-1 E&W commercial tractability; ISO/JTC 1 PAS fast-track 2028-2030)
• project_v2_architecture_locked_2026_04_22 (Option D Phase-1 jurisdictions = E&W + Scotland + Switzerland)
• project_scotland_as_second_jurisdiction (Scotland is Phase-1 now, not Phase-2)
• feedback_v2_clean_break_from_v6_6 (v6.6 is reference-only during build; THIS memory complements by adding: v6.6 becomes THE Phase-1.5 stress-test import source)
• A-25 amendment in docs/superpowers/scoping/2026-04-23-v1-12-amendments.md

Do NOT

• ❌ Frame decisions as “E&W first, Scotland/Swiss/faith as later additions”
• ❌ Privilege E&W in enumeration order (except when explicitly describing Phase-1 sequencing, and even then flag the international framing)
• ❌ Treat module boundaries as fixed after A-24 sequence lock
• ❌ Assume per-jurisdiction InheritKit crates are always the right home for non-E&W content (sometimes Core needs to flex)
• ❌ Forget Phase 1.5 v6.6 stress-test is a hard gate before declaring v2 Phase-1 complete

Canonical phrasing

• ✅ “INHERIT v2 is an international standard covering every jurisdiction, succession regime, tax treatment, and faith tradition. Phase-1 initial authoring is scoped to E&W + Scotland + Switzerland + faith-tradition overlays for commercial tractability; Phase 1.5 immediately stress-tests the architecture against v6.6’s 21 extensions before Phase-1 is declared complete.”
• ❌ “INHERIT v2 Phase-1 covers E&W; Scotland + Swiss jurisdiction crates follow; other jurisdictions land in Phase-2+.”