Read one round whole, to answer it
Every item of one round, at the indices an answer names them by: the kind, the reach it asks for, the title, the body IN FULL, the turns it stands on, the definition it would replace, and — where narya authored a program — that program IN FULL.
NOTHING HERE IS ELIDED, and that is the operation’s whole reason. An authored script must be shown to be READ rather than only named: a person cannot consent to what they were not shown, and what they consent to is what the confined runtime later runs, byte for byte. A client that drew a digest, a length or a “show more” would be offering approval over text nobody read.
An item’s kind, scope and action are the MODEL’s own words and are deliberately not the ledger’s enums: the review keeps them untyped, and they become typed at the moment a person’s answer turns a proposal into a row. A client displays them and never resolves them.
Autorizaciones
Enforced on every transport, with no exempt operation. A person's request — over the default local unix socket exactly as over a TCP listener — must carry a JWT issued by the configured identity provider, which the host verifies itself against that issuer's key set: signature, issuer, expiry, and the person and organisation it names. Requests without a valid one receive 401 NRY-0011. The socket's file permissions are transport and are not an authorisation.
Parámetros de ruta
The refinement round's id, as proposeRefinement returned it or as refinement-proposed announced it.
Respuesta
The round, with every body and every script in full.
One round whole: what the review proposed, what the service dropped and why, and every item at the index an answer names it by.
It is the only read that carries an item's body and an authored program's TEXT. The listing carries neither, for the reason listRefinements carries no script: a page nobody can read is not a page. Here the whole point is that everything is readable.
How many items this round carries — the length of items.
Never zero, and the bound says so because the engine's three parking roads all guarantee it: the loop's review refuses to park a round with no surviving edits, and the other two — a proposal over this contract, and asking to widen one fact's reach — each park exactly one item. The document is written once and never edited afterwards, so a round that stands is a round with items. Same bound, same reason, as the listing's own itemCount, which counts the very same list.
x >= 1How many edits the review proposed, which is itemCount plus everything the service dropped. "6 proposed, 2 kept" is what tells somebody whether the loop is worth having, and it is the service's own count rather than a client's arithmetic.
x >= 0The items in the order the engine put them, which is the order a client draws them in and the order the indices count. A client that sorted these rows would post somebody's approval onto a different edit.
The ONE conversation every citation in this round points into. It is on the round rather than on each citation because a review may only cite what it read, and what it read is one conversation.
Absent on a round whose stored conversation is not addressable — a round proposed with no session, or one whose id this host can no longer parse. A client then draws the round without the jump.
The canonical checkout path the round is answered against, absent at the owner's global scope — the ledger's own repository column verbatim. It is what keeps a round a complete question after the session that proposed it has been purged.
Which road a refinement came in on: narya's own review of a conversation, a client teaching it through this contract, or an import. Both roads land pending and pass the same consent.
loop, api, import Who asked for this round, on the roads where somebody did. Absent on loop, where the answer is nobody: narya read a conversation and proposed of its own accord, which is the fact that separates that road from the other two.
It is not the consenting actor. Who ALLOWED a fact is on its events, where an answer belongs; who asked for it is here and on the row, where provenance belongs, and the two are the same person only by coincidence.
128What the service refused and how much of it, by reason, ordered by reason so two reads of one round agree. Empty when it kept everything the review returned.
What the gate said when it decided this round was worth running.