The mechanism shipped without a document. Both are here now, generated
from this repository rather than uploaded — so the company is named from
CompanyProfile exactly as the invoices name it, the sub-processor list is
the three places customer data really leaves this application, and the
deletion deadlines are read off the commands that enforce them. A wording
change is a diff somebody can review, not a file that appears.
`clupilot:publish-dpa 1.0` renders both to PDF (TCPDF, the engine the
invoices already use), stores them on the private disk and puts them in
force; `--draft` stops short of that. The console's upload form is
untouched: a lawyer's revision arrives as a PDF and becomes a version like
any other.
**The annex says what this installation does, not what it would like to.**
Every measure in it was checked against the code first — the isolation is
one VM per customer because that is what provisioning builds, the backup
is a daily snapshot job at 02:00 because that is what RegisterBackup
creates, the deletion deadlines are the two prune commands. Claims the
system does not currently keep are NOT in the document, and they are named
in the handover instead. A TOM that promises more than the machine does is
the document an auditor reads before looking.
**Downloading** now carries the version in the filename —
CluPilot-AV-Vertrag-1.0.pdf — so "which fassung did I agree to" is
answerable from a downloads folder months later without opening anything.
Both sides get the button; inline stays the default, because a contract is
read before it is filed.
Placeholder register data is left off the document rather than printed: a
"FN 000000a" on a contract looks like a real number and is not one.
Also: the wordmark scan tripped on a paragraph whose first word is the
company name, for the second time. It now looks for the name as the whole
CONTENT of an element, which is what a lockup is, rather than for the name
after a tag, which is also how a sentence starts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Art. 28(3) GDPR wants a contract wherever personal data is processed on
somebody else's behalf, which is the whole of what this product does. "In
writing" there includes electronic form (Art. 28(9)), so a document the
customer can read plus a recorded acceptance is enough — no signature on
paper. The website already promises "AV-Vertrag inklusive", which means it
has to be obtainable without asking us for it. It was not obtainable at
all.
**The text is never this application's.** An operator uploads the document
their lawyer wrote, names the version, and publishes it; the measures ride
along as a second file, because they are an annex to the agreement and
"which measures applied when this customer accepted" has to have one
answer. Inventing the text here would have been worse than having none.
**Uploading and publishing are two acts.** Acceptance is per version, so
publishing leaves every customer who accepted the previous one outstanding
again — correct, and far too expensive to trigger by dropping a file on a
form. It goes through a confirmation modal that says exactly that (R23).
**The customer's side** is a card in the contract tab: read the agreement,
read the measures, one press to conclude it. What that press records is
what makes it evidence rather than a flag — the version, the moment, the
address it came from, and the login that pressed. Pressing twice is one
agreement (unique index, not a check somebody can forget), and a
superseded acceptance is kept rather than overwritten: it was true when it
was made, and the history is the point.
Nothing renders until a version is in force. A card offering an agreement
that does not exist is worse than the silence.
The files live on the private disk and are served through routes that
check who is asking — an agreement is not a public asset, and a guessable
URL to one would be a list of who our customers are. The customer route
takes no version parameter: which document applies is ours to say.
`dpa.manage` is its own capability on the OPERATOR guard. Whoever keeps
the platform running does not thereby decide what every customer is asked
to agree to — and a capability written under `web` since the 2026-07-29
move lands in a guard nothing authenticates against, which is how this one
first shipped answering 403 to a role that visibly had it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
nexxo