When a Round-7 (or any) finding describes a constraint in ONE Phase-1 jurisdiction, do NOT contaminate the whole Apache-core module scope around it. Treat the finding as a per-jurisdiction-crate constraint, not a module-scope reduction. Always check whether OTHER Phase-1 jurisdictions enable what the constrained one constrains, BEFORE concluding scope contraction.
The architecture is international from day one. The Apache-core layer standardises primitives that EXIST across the international Phase-1 set (currently 5 secular jurisdictions — E&W + Scotland + Switzerland + Texas + Florida — plus 3 faith traditions — Islamic + Hindu + Jewish). Per-jurisdiction crates then constrain or enable those primitives.
Why: Sunday 26 April 2026 incident. T56 (document signing) found that e-signed wills are not currently valid in E&W / Scotland / Switzerland (UK COVID-relaxation expired Jan 2024; Scots requires handwritten subscription; Swiss ZGB requires notarial / handwritten / oral). I framed this as “e-signed wills are out of scope Phase-1; Wills module scope contracts to physical-witnessing primitives only”.
Rich corrected: “we never assumed www.inheritwills.com was going to permit e-signing in the UK. e-signed wills are inevitably going to become more common. I think Texas and Florida in the USA have been the first to adopt them. We need to build with the future in mind. … I feel the spec is still too UK orientated — stop drifting to UK orientated.”
The actual scope after correction: Wills module DOES standardise electronic-wills + remote-online-notarization primitives at Apache-core, because:
- Florida (Electronic Wills Act 2020, Fla. Stat. § 732.521 et seq.) permits electronic execution + RON
- Texas (Texas Estates Code amendments via SB 1827) permits electronic wills + remote witnessing
- UK + Scotland + Switzerland will follow as their statutes catch up — Law Commission 2025 already recommended an enabling power for E&W
- Building electronic-wills primitives into the standard NOW, with Texas + Florida as the testbed, positions the standard for global adoption rather than UK-first-then-extend
The architectural pattern that survives: per-jurisdiction crate axioms express each jurisdiction’s constraint or enablement. UK = constrains-to-physical-witness; Florida = enables-electronic-with-RON; Texas = enables-electronic-with-remote-witness; etc.
This is the same anti-pattern as letting an E&W intestacy rule shape the Asset module, or letting a Swiss notarial form shape the Trust module. UK-drift is a recurring failure mode in this session AND in prior sessions (feedback_inherit_v2_international_from_day_one was first-locked 2026-04-24 for the same reason; this memory is the strict-form re-lock after recurrence).
How to apply:
- Before writing “X is out of scope Phase-1 because
” , ask:- Is X out of scope in Texas? Florida? Switzerland? Islamic? Hindu? Jewish?
- If ANY of those Phase-1 jurisdictions enables or requires X, then X is IN SCOPE at the Apache-core layer; the UK constraint is a per-jurisdiction-crate axiom, not a standard-layer scope reduction.
- Before writing “the Wills/Trusts/Probate/etc. module scope contracts because
” , do the same check across all 8 Phase-1 jurisdictions. If even one enables what the UK constrains, the module scope DOES NOT contract. - When citing T-files, separate the per-jurisdiction findings from the standard-layer implications. T56 said “e-signed wills illegal in UK + Scotland + Switzerland” — that’s a per-jurisdiction finding. The standard-layer implication is “the Wills module standardises electronic-wills primitives via Texas + Florida; UK + Scotland + Switzerland use the constraint axioms”.
- When discussing Phase-1 timeline / scope / commercial story, the international framing is canonical. “InheritWills launches in the UK” is a brand-and-marketing statement, NOT an architecture statement. The architecture launches across 5 secular + 3 faith jurisdictions simultaneously per the symmetric-jurisdictional discipline (locked 2026-04-24).
- When tempted to use UK + EU + Swiss legal terminology by default (e.g. “intestacy” / “executor” / “probate” / “deemed domicile” / “lasting power of attorney” / “spousal abatement”), check whether the term cleanly translates to Texas + Florida + Islamic + Hindu + Jewish settings. If not, use a more abstract Apache-core term and let per-jurisdiction crates supply the local-language variants.
- Strong-form discipline: NEVER let UK-specific evidence drive scope-contraction at the Apache-core layer. UK-specific evidence drives per-jurisdiction-crate constraint specification ONLY.
Boundary test (run before any scope-contraction conclusion): would Rich receive this conclusion as UK-drift? If yes — pause and re-frame as per-jurisdiction-crate constraint.
Relationship to existing memories:
- Strict-form companion to
feedback_inherit_v2_international_from_day_one(2026-04-24 first-lock; this memory adds the explicit anti-pattern check + Texas + Florida grounding) - Compounds with
project_first_vertical_slice_symmetric_2026_04_24(Option G SYMMETRIC — no early jurisdictional bet) - Compounds with
feedback_international_english_for_inherit_v2(US-style spelling for v2 + InheritKit; Texas + Florida further reinforces US-style framing) - Triggers update to architecture-state Q2 jurisdictional scope: 6 → 8 (E&W + Scotland + Switzerland + Texas + Florida + Islamic + Hindu + Jewish) — pending Rich-confirmation re-lock
- Triggers revision of Round-7 T56 verdict: from “FULLY-AVOIDS via legal finding (e-signed wills illegal Phase-1)” to “PARTIALLY-AVOIDS — UK + Scotland + Switzerland constrain to physical-witness; Texas + Florida enable electronic + RON; Wills module standardises both”
- Triggers expansion of T56 partner stack: US QES + RON providers added (Notarize.com / Proof.com / OneNotary / DocuSign Identify US tier) alongside UK + Swiss stack