Correct public evidence drift after security scan

.github/workflows/static-validation.yml

@@ -38,13 +38,15 @@ jobs:
             "AGENTS.md"
             "README.md"
             "SECURITY.md"
+            ".gitignore"
             "docs/evidence/01_repository_inventory.md"
             "docs/evidence/02_security_triage.md"
             "docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md"
             "docs/remediation/remediation_plan.md"
             "docs/threat-model/threat_model.md"
             "docs/validation/validation_report.md"
             "docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md"
+            "docs/governance/main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md"
           )
 
           for file in "${required_files[@]}"; do

PATCH_VERIFICATION_RESULT.md

@@ -16,13 +16,13 @@ A renderizacao foi alterada para `textContent`, mantendo o fluxo local da aplica
 - A aplicacao deve permanecer funcional.
 - O escopo deve permanecer local, proprio e defensivo.
 
-## Resultado esperado
+## Resultado da revisao estatica
 
-Apos o patch, a area de saida deve exibir exatamente o texto informado pelo usuario, sem criar elementos HTML a partir da entrada.
+A revisao estatica confirmou que o codigo usa `textContent` para renderizar texto puro, sem sink de criacao de elementos HTML a partir da entrada.
 
 ## Limites do teste
 
-Esta verificacao e textual e local. Nao houve varredura, acesso a rede, exploracao real, teste contra terceiros, coleta de credenciais ou uso de dados sensiveis.
+Esta verificacao e estatica, textual e local. Nao houve varredura, acesso a rede, exploracao real, teste contra terceiros, coleta de credenciais ou uso de dados sensiveis.
 
 ## Confirmacao de escopo
 

PUBLIC_REMEDIATION_SUMMARY.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Este laboratorio demonstra um ciclo defensivo minimo:
 1. Identificacao de padrao inseguro em codigo proprio.
 2. Documentacao do risco.
 3. Planejamento de patch.
-4. Verificacao esperada.
+4. Verificacao local registrada.
 5. Preparacao de evidencia publica sanitizada.
 
 ## Achado
@@ -28,6 +28,6 @@ Usar `textContent` para renderizar texto puro.
 
 ## Status
 
-Remediacao concluida.
+Remediacao concluida e validada no escopo local.
 
-O patch substituiu a renderizacao insegura por renderizacao de texto puro. A verificacao prevista confirma que marcacoes HTML digitadas pelo usuario devem aparecer como texto literal, sem interpretacao pelo navegador.
+O patch substituiu a renderizacao insegura por renderizacao de texto puro. A evidencia atual registra que a aplicacao usa `textContent`, mantendo marcacoes HTML digitadas pelo usuario como texto literal, sem interpretacao pelo navegador.

README.md

@@ -48,13 +48,15 @@ Current controls observed:
 - user input rendered through `textContent` in `app.js`
 - defensive AI operating rules documented in `AGENTS.md`
 - repository security policy documented in `SECURITY.md`
+- static validation workflow documented in `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml`
+- repository hygiene guardrails documented in `.gitignore`
 
 Primary risks documented:
 
 - future changes could reintroduce `innerHTML` or unsafe dynamic rendering
 - public documentation could overclaim OpenAI affiliation, Daybreak access, or security coverage
 - deployment hardening would need review if the app is later hosted publicly
-- no automated CI validation exists yet
+- static CI validation exists and must stay synchronized with the evidence package
 - evidence must stay synchronized with the actual repository files
 
 ## Evidence Package
@@ -68,6 +70,12 @@ Evidence files are stored under `docs/`:
 - `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md`
 - `docs/validation/validation_report.md`
 - `docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md`
+- `docs/governance/main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md`
+
+Repository guardrail files:
+
+- `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml`
+- `.gitignore`
 
 ## Local Validation
 

SECURITY_REVIEW.md

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 # SECURITY_REVIEW.md
 
-## Revisao defensiva inicial
+## Revisao defensiva inicial historica
 
 ### Escopo
 
 Aplicacao local propria composta por HTML, CSS e JavaScript.
 
 ### Achado
 
-O arquivo `app.js` usa `innerHTML` para renderizar entrada controlada pelo usuario.
+Antes da remediacao, o arquivo `app.js` usava `innerHTML` para renderizar entrada controlada pelo usuario.
 
 ### Classificacao
 
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Em uma aplicacao real, esse padrao pode permitir injecao de HTML/script no DOM c
 
 ### Evidencia
 
-Trecho observado:
+Trecho historico observado antes do patch:
 
 ```js
 output.innerHTML = value;
@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ output.innerHTML = value;
 
 Substituir `innerHTML` por `textContent` quando o objetivo for exibir texto puro.
 
+### Estado atual
+
+O estado atual do runtime usa `textContent` para renderizar a entrada como texto puro. Este arquivo permanece como registro historico do achado inicial.
+
 ### Limites
 
 Este laboratorio nao executa exploracao contra terceiros.

docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md

@@ -70,6 +70,6 @@ No affiliation with OpenAI is claimed. No acceptance, access, or authorization f
 
 ## Next Improvements
 
-- add CI validation
+- keep CI validation aligned with repository evidence and branch protection
 - add reviewed deployment headers if publicly hosted
 - add signed release notes after merge

docs/evidence/01_repository_inventory.md

@@ -12,9 +12,19 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
 
 ```text
 .
+├── .github/
+│   └── workflows/
+│       └── static-validation.yml
+├── .gitignore
 ├── AGENTS.md
+├── CASE_STUDY.md
+├── PATCH_PLAN.md
+├── PATCH_VERIFICATION_RESULT.md
+├── PUBLIC_REMEDIATION_SUMMARY.md
 ├── README.md
 ├── SECURITY.md
+├── SECURITY_REVIEW.md
+├── VERIFICATION_PLAN.md
 ├── app.js
 ├── index.html
 ├── styles.css
@@ -24,6 +34,8 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
     ├── evidence/
     │   ├── 01_repository_inventory.md
     │   └── 02_security_triage.md
+    ├── governance/
+    │   └── main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md
     ├── remediation/
     │   ├── human_approval_checklist.md
     │   └── remediation_plan.md
@@ -44,7 +56,10 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
 | `styles.css` | Visual styling. | No runtime security logic. |
 | `AGENTS.md` | Defensive operating rules for AI-assisted work. | Defines allowed and prohibited actions. |
 | `SECURITY.md` | Security policy. | Defines scope, reporting, and public-lab limits. |
-| `docs/` | Evidence package. | Contains inventory, threat model, triage, remediation plan, checklist, validation report, and candidate summary. |
+| `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` | Static defensive validation workflow. | Runs file inventory, JavaScript syntax, unsafe rendering, secret-pattern, hygiene, and bounded-claim checks. |
+| `.gitignore` | Repository hygiene guardrails. | Blocks local deployment state, generated archives, logs, and editor artifacts. |
+| Root remediation docs | Historical remediation evidence. | Keep temporal wording clear so legacy findings are not confused with current runtime state. |
+| `docs/` | Evidence package. | Contains inventory, threat model, triage, remediation, validation, governance, and candidate evidence. |
 
 ## Technologies Used
 
@@ -57,6 +72,7 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
 
 - `index.html`
 - `app.js`
+- `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` for repository validation on pull requests, pushes to `main`, and manual workflow dispatch
 
 ## Dependencies Identified
 

docs/evidence/02_security_triage.md

@@ -8,10 +8,10 @@ Mode: defensive, sanitized, no external scanning
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | R-001 | Dynamic rendering | Future edits could replace `textContent` with raw HTML rendering. | User-controlled text could render as executable markup if unsafe patterns are introduced later. | Medium | Medium | Current `app.js` writes output through `output.textContent = value;`. | Preserve `textContent`; review any future `innerHTML`, `outerHTML`, or `insertAdjacentHTML` use. | Remediated control present; monitor for regression. |
 | R-002 | Public narrative | Documentation could overclaim Daybreak access, OpenAI affiliation, or production security coverage. | Misleading public evidence and reputational risk. | Medium | Medium | README and candidate summary require bounded language. | Use `aligned with Daybreak concepts`, `public sanitized lab`, and `human-reviewed remediation`; do not claim affiliation or acceptance. | Corrected. |
-| R-003 | Validation | No automated CI workflow exists. | Regressions in JavaScript syntax, rendering pattern, or documentation accuracy may go unnoticed. | Medium | Low/Medium | No CI config or package manifest is present. | Add lightweight CI later using `node --check app.js` and static grep checks. | Planned. |
+| R-003 | Validation | Static CI workflow must remain aligned with repository evidence. | Regressions in JavaScript syntax, rendering pattern, hygiene, or bounded public claims may go unnoticed if the workflow drifts or is disabled. | Medium | Low/Medium | `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` is present and runs static defensive checks. | Keep the workflow required for review and update docs whenever validation scope changes. | Guardrail present; monitor for drift. |
 | R-004 | Deployment hardening | If the app is publicly hosted later, headers and CSP are not yet defined in repo. | Browser hardening would depend on the hosting platform defaults. | Medium | Low/Medium | No deployment config exists in the reviewed public scope. | Add reviewed static hosting config only after deployment target is chosen. | Deferred. |
 | R-005 | Evidence drift | Evidence files can describe files or risks that are not present in the repository. | Audit trail becomes unreliable. | Medium | Medium | Prior PR draft referenced unrelated content-stack files, ZIP archives, Netlify state, and `localStorage`. | Keep inventory tied to actual repository files; update evidence whenever repo structure changes. | Corrected in this pass. |
-| R-006 | Secret hygiene | Future commits could accidentally include tokens, private keys, local state, or archives. | Public leakage of sensitive or environment-specific data. | Low/Medium | Medium | Current reviewed scope does not require secrets. | Add `.gitignore`; run secret-pattern scan before merge. | Guardrail added/planned. |
+| R-006 | Secret hygiene | Future commits could accidentally include tokens, private keys, local state, or archives. | Public leakage of sensitive or environment-specific data. | Low/Medium | Medium | Current reviewed scope does not require secrets; `.gitignore` blocks common local state and generated artifacts. | Preserve `.gitignore`; run secret-pattern scan before merge. | Guardrail present; monitor for drift. |
 
 ## Prioritization
 
@@ -20,5 +20,5 @@ Highest practical priority before merge:
 1. Keep the evidence package synchronized with the actual repository.
 2. Preserve safe rendering through `textContent`.
 3. Keep public claims bounded and non-affiliated.
-4. Add `.gitignore` guardrails for local state and generated archives.
-5. Add lightweight CI in a later PR.
+4. Preserve `.gitignore` guardrails for local state and generated archives.
+5. Keep the static CI workflow aligned with the evidence package.

docs/remediation/remediation_plan.md

@@ -21,8 +21,9 @@ This correction pass fixes evidence drift: the previous PR draft described unrel
 | Correct validation report. | `docs/validation/validation_report.md` | Separates verified remote review from recommended local checks. |
 | Correct human approval checklist. | `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md` | Adds merge controls tied to this repository. |
 | Correct Daybreak candidate summary. | `docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md` | Keeps public narrative bounded and accurate. |
-| Remove unrelated content-stack documentation from this PR. | `docs/STACK_CRIACAO_CONTEUDO.md` | Eliminates portfolio noise and evidence drift. |
+| Remove unrelated content-stack references from public evidence. | Repository evidence docs | Eliminates portfolio noise and evidence drift. |
 | Add ignore guardrails for future local state and generated archives. | `.gitignore` | Reduces accidental publication risk. |
+| Add static defensive validation workflow. | `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` | Reduces regression risk for syntax, unsafe rendering, secret-pattern, hygiene, and bounded-claim checks. |
 
 ## Existing Runtime Remediation
 
@@ -38,17 +39,17 @@ This is the central remediation evidence for the original unsafe rendering class
 
 These actions are deferred because they affect release behavior or require follow-up validation:
 
-- add GitHub Actions CI
 - add deployment config and security headers after a hosting target is chosen
 - add CSP after compatibility review
 - add automated documentation path validation
 - add signed release notes
+- periodically verify GitHub ruleset enforcement against the tracked static validation workflow
 
 ## Recommended Next Remediation
 
 1. Run the local validation commands from `docs/validation/validation_report.md`.
-2. Confirm the PR diff contains only intended lab evidence and guardrail files.
-3. Convert the PR from draft to ready for review after validation is recorded.
+2. Confirm the static validation workflow passes on the pull request.
+3. Confirm the PR diff contains only intended lab evidence and guardrail files.
 4. Merge through the protected branch flow, not by direct push to `main`.
 
 ## Safety Invariants

docs/threat-model/threat_model.md

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Outputs:
 | Future code change replaces `textContent` with raw HTML rendering. | Medium | Preserve `textContent`; review all `innerHTML`, `outerHTML`, and `insertAdjacentHTML` usage. |
 | Public evidence describes files that are not present in the repository. | Medium | Keep inventory and validation tied to actual repository state. |
 | Documentation implies OpenAI affiliation, Daybreak acceptance, or production-grade security coverage. | Medium | Use bounded public wording and explicit limitations. |
-| No automated CI checks prevent rendering-pattern regression. | Low/Medium | Add lightweight CI in a later PR. |
+| Static CI validation drifts from repository evidence or is not enforced. | Low/Medium | Keep `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` aligned with the evidence package and verify branch ruleset enforcement. |
 | Future public hosting lacks reviewed security headers or CSP. | Low/Medium | Add deployment config after hosting target is chosen. |
 | Secrets or local state are accidentally committed in future work. | Medium | Add `.gitignore` guardrails and run secret-pattern scans before merge. |
 
@@ -75,13 +75,14 @@ These are described conceptually for defense only.
 - no package manager dependencies
 - no external API calls in app code
 - user input rendered through `output.textContent = value;`
+- static defensive validation workflow in `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml`
 - defensive operating rules in `AGENTS.md`
 - defensive-only security policy in `SECURITY.md`
 - human approval checklist in `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md`
 
 ## Gaps
 
-- no automated CI validation
+- live GitHub ruleset enforcement must be periodically verified against the tracked workflow
 - no deployment hardening config yet
 - no automated documentation path validation
 - no signed release notes
@@ -92,6 +93,6 @@ These are described conceptually for defense only.
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | High | A change would expose secrets, execute untrusted script from user input, or publish private operational data. | Raw user input rendered as executable HTML in a public deployment. |
 | Medium | A change could mislead reviewers, expose local state, or reintroduce unsafe rendering. | Evidence references unrelated files or `innerHTML` is reintroduced. |
-| Low | A weakness reduces repeatability or hardening but has limited impact in this static local-first lab. | Missing CI or missing deployment headers before a deployment exists. |
+| Low | A weakness reduces repeatability or hardening but has limited impact in this static local-first lab. | CI workflow drift or missing deployment headers before a deployment exists. |
 
 No Critical risk is claimed from the current bounded review because there is no backend, no authentication boundary, no secrets intentionally used by the app, and no external system was tested.

docs/validation/validation_report.md

@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ This correction pass reviewed the remote repository contents through the GitHub
 
 No external scanning was performed. No dependency installation was required. No offensive testing was performed.
 
-## Repository Files Confirmed During Remote Review
+This report separates the original recorded local validation run from later repository state that was added in follow-up commits.
+
+## Repository Files And Evidence State
 
 | Path | Status | Note |
 | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -20,13 +22,16 @@ No external scanning was performed. No dependency installation was required. No
 | `index.html` | Present | Static UI. |
 | `app.js` | Present | Contains text-safe rendering control. |
 | `styles.css` | Present | Styling only. |
+| `.gitignore` | Present in recorded validation run | Blocks local state, archives, logs, and editor artifacts. |
+| `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` | Present in current repository state | Static defensive validation workflow added after the original local validation run recorded below. |
 | `docs/evidence/01_repository_inventory.md` | Present | Corrected. |
 | `docs/evidence/02_security_triage.md` | Present | Corrected. |
 | `docs/remediation/remediation_plan.md` | Present | Corrected. |
 | `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md` | Present | Corrected. |
 | `docs/threat-model/threat_model.md` | Present | Corrected. |
 | `docs/validation/validation_report.md` | Present | This report. |
 | `docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md` | Present | Corrected. |
+| `docs/governance/main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md` | Present in current repository state | Governance evidence added after the original local validation run recorded below. |
 
 ## Runtime Rendering Control
 
@@ -41,8 +46,8 @@ This means user input is written as text, not interpreted as HTML.
 ## Local Validation Environment
 
 - Shell: Windows PowerShell
-- Repository path: `C:\Users\vtcom\CodexProjetos\daybreak-defensive-remediation-lab`
-- Branch: `codex/daybreak-remediation-evidence`
+- Repository path: local repository checkout path redacted
+- Recorded validation branch: `codex/daybreak-remediation-evidence`
 - Node.js: `v26.3.0`
 - Working tree: clean after validation
 - Dependency install: not required
@@ -65,6 +70,8 @@ Get-ChildItem -Recurse -File -Force |
 
 Result: repository file inventory was listed. Confirmed current scope includes `.gitignore`, `AGENTS.md`, `app.js`, `index.html`, `styles.css`, legacy remediation docs, `README.md`, `SECURITY.md`, and the new `docs/` evidence package.
 
+Follow-up repository state now also includes `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` and `docs/governance/main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md`; those files were not part of the original local validation run captured by the commit log below.
+
 ```powershell
 node --check app.js
 ```
@@ -113,6 +120,7 @@ a84fcdc Correct threat model scope
 | JavaScript syntax | Pass | `node --check app.js` returned no error. |
 | Unsafe rendering pattern scan | Pass | No `innerHTML`, `outerHTML`, `insertAdjacentHTML`, `eval(`, or `new Function` in `app.js`/`index.html`. |
 | Secret-pattern scan | Pass with documentation-only matches | Matches occurred in documentation/checklist/evidence text, not as concrete runtime secrets. |
+| Static CI workflow | Present in current repository state | `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` records static defensive validation for pull requests, pushes to `main`, and manual workflow dispatch; this was added after the original local validation run recorded above. |
 | PR ready state | Pass | PR was converted from draft to ready for review after validation was recorded. |
 | External scanning | Not applicable | Explicitly out of scope and not executed. |
 
@@ -135,6 +143,6 @@ No concrete runtime secret was identified from the reported secret-pattern match
 
 ## Pending Items
 
-- add CI static validation in a later PR
+- keep static CI validation aligned with repository evidence
 - review CSP/security headers before any public deployment
 - add release notes after merge