Structural positioning
fix(reference): add dated Correction callouts to 9 of 23 reference/ articles, verified against canonical origin/main — stale repo-rename references, Do-Not-Use vocabulary, wrong license claim + unbuilt service-search presented as complete, fabricated hardware specifics, sibling-article RAM-figure conflation, wrong LoRA training framework/rank/precision/GPU tier, compliance-relevant deployed-vs-planned overclaim (escalated), retired research category still listed; 14 verified clean
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Structural positioning is the approach PointSav uses to describe the architectur The customer base the platform serves does not buy software based on vendor comparisons. Asset managers, regulated professionals, and fiduciary institutions buy based on defensibility: can the system answer an auditor's questions directly from its own structure, without a vendor attestation letter? Structural positioning addresses this directly. Every commitment in the table below is either present in the deployed substrate or it is not — no marketing claim intervenes. An independent auditor can verify the append-only property of the ledger, the absence of the delete verb from the code path, or the unidirectional constraint on the [[diode-standard|Diode adapter]], without relying on a vendor's self-reported controls summary. [^2] Structural positioning addresses this directly. Every commitment in the table below is either present in the deployed substrate or it is not — no marketing claim intervenes. An independent auditor can verify the append-only property of the ledger, the absence of the delete verb from the code path, or the unidirectional constraint on the [[diode-standard|Diode adapter]], without relying on a vendor's self-reported controls summary. [^2] (Correction, 2026-08-02 — compliance-relevant, escalated: this "deployed, not marketing" framing is contradicted by this wiki's own more authoritative sibling article, `governance/compliance-and-continuous-disclosure.md`, which explicitly marks 3 of this table's 8 rows as "Planned"/"intended," not deployed: asset resolution on vendor failure (DARP), machine-readable compliance (OSCAL/SBOM/HBOM), and continuous audit (`service-audit`, which that same sibling article calls "an intended immutable log... intended to run below the OS" — `service-audit` doesn't exist as a crate at all). The append-only ledger row does check out as genuinely current. Flagged, not resolved — needs re-hedging the 3 planned rows to match the sibling article's own correct language.) Named-competitor comparisons are specifically avoided. The customer segments the platform targets make institutional purchasing decisions that outlast any two-vendor comparison table; the commitments described here hold regardless of what the competitive landscape looks like when the decision is reviewed.