PointSav platform — architectural overview
editorial(architecture): fix foundry-doctrine-architecture's 52-vs-54 claim-count contradiction (Track-B) — heading and body disagreed in both EN and ES; standardized to 54, consistent with the real doctrine's own claim range (#1-54); the source-citation question (which repo hosts the authoritative doctrine text) remains genuinely unresolved and escalated separately to Command rather than asserted here, since real evidence points both ways on whether this describes a distinct public artifact or an internal governance document; dropped the narrated correction framing per register-documentation.yaml
@@ -44,9 +44,7 @@ The platform is built on six foundational commitments that take precedence over **Human checkpoint at F12 is mandatory.** [[architecture-decisions|SYS-ADR-10]] — the final human checkpoint before any state is committed to a verified ledger — is never bypassed. Automation serves the human; no automated path exists around F12. ## The Fifty-Two Leapfrog Claims **Correction (2026-08-02, verified against canonical `origin/main`):** two issues. (1) This heading says "Fifty-Two" but the body text below says "54 numbered structural claims" — an internal contradiction within this same article, and inconsistent with the sibling article `foundry-doctrine-overview.md`, which consistently says fifty-two throughout. (2) The claim that "the authoritative text is available via the `pointsav/factory-release-engineering` repository" doesn't check out — that repo's real content (confirmed via commit log and full-text search) is purely license/legal-governance tooling (LICENSE-MATRIX, CLA, SPDX headers, license-propagation scripts); no doctrine/charter document, "six pillars," "leapfrog claims," or "cross-industry inventions" text exists anywhere in it. **Flagged, not resolved** — needs a real source located (or the citation removed) and the 52-vs-54 contradiction resolved. ## The Fifty-Four Leapfrog Claims The doctrine enumerates 54 numbered structural claims that together constitute the platform's competitive positioning relative to hyperscaler software-as-a-service. Each claim identifies a structural property of the platform substrate that hyperscaler economics or architecture structurally foreclose — not a feature advantage, but a property that cannot be replicated without changing the underlying business model.