# Changelog

> **This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings — which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it — are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.**

## Score

- CAI 31 → 72 (+40.6)
- Rubric changed (rubric-2026.08.18 → rubric-2026.08.19) — scores are not directly comparable.

## Lenses

- Code Health 100 (new)
- Architecture 100 (new)
- Maturity 21 → 84 (+63.2)
- Readiness 15 → 61 (+45.3)
- Security 100 → 67 (-33.3)
- Domain Modelling 100 (new)
- Event Sourcing 100 (new)

## Resolved (6)

- Dependency hygiene not measured — no supported dependency manifest was read
- No tests found
- No tests — template/sample
- bus factor not measured — no commits were sampled
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots

## New (13)

- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- High: security finding (details withheld)
- High: security finding (details withheld)
- High: security finding (details withheld)
- High: security finding (details withheld)
- High: security finding (details withheld)
- No SBOM
- No build provenance
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
- The AI-ready architecture section lists 23 rules but does not explain what any of them are or how to apply them. (README.md)
- Unpinned build actions
- complexity unreadable for .dart, .swift — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured