HTTPTimestamper builds a Request directly from a precomputed SHA-256
digest (Request{HashAlgorithm, HashedMessage, Nonce}.Marshal(), not
CreateRequest(io.Reader) which would hash the input itself), POSTs it to
a TSA, and validates that the parsed response's hash algorithm, hashed
message and nonce actually match what was sent before accepting the
token — a response that doesn't match the request isn't a valid
timestamp for that hash, regardless of whether it parses.
Uses github.com/digitorus/timestamp for the RFC-3161/ASN.1 encoding
rather than hand-rolling it.
TSA choice (open point in CLAUDE.md): FreeTSA.org for now — free,
RFC-3161-compliant, verified end-to-end with a live smoke test, but
not eIDAS-qualified. Documented as needing an upgrade to a qualified
provider (D-Trust, Bundesdruckerei, ...) before real customer use, same
treatment as the open legal questions in rules/OPEN.md.
Tests cover request/response validation without network (hash size
guard, a fake server that parses and checks the incoming request,
non-200 and malformed-response handling) plus a real integration test
against FreeTSA gated behind DEKLARIX_TSA_INTEGRATION, mirroring the
DATABASE_URL-gated pattern in internal/store.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
internal/rules implements Stufe 2 from the core principle: the LLM
extracts facts, this deterministic engine judges them against versioned
YAML rules. Facts/Condition/Rule/Finding types, a loader that refuses to
load on a missing id/version or a duplicate rule id rather than silently
skipping a bad file, and Evaluate() matching facts against rules.
Two real rules grounded in verified research (see rules/OPEN.md for the
open questions that surfaced along the way):
- WK-001: no disclosure at all despite consideration (§ 5a Abs. 4 UWG,
§ 22 Abs. 1 MStV)
- WK-004: disclosure present but hidden behind a "mehr anzeigen" cut
(§ 5a Abs. 4 UWG, Leitfaden der Medienanstalten, LG Köln 12.05.2026)
The two are deliberately disjoint (WK-004 requires disclosure_present=
true) so a post with no disclosure at all doesn't double-fire both
rules. Golden suite in testdata/golden/ covers both rules plus two clean
cases; it's this suite, not the UI, that's the actual asset per
CLAUDE.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
internal/store connects via pgx and runs golang-migrate migrations
embedded in the binary (go:embed), so Deklarix stays a single binary
despite the move to Postgres. Schema covers the five MVP tables
(submission, asset, extraction, finding, evidence_package, participant).
extraction, finding and evidence_package are append-only by design: a
Postgres trigger rejects UPDATE/DELETE outright, since a corrigible
evidence archive isn't an evidence archive. Corrections to a finding are
new rows whose supersedes column points at the row they replace (set at
INSERT time on the new row, since the trigger blocks UPDATE on the old
one) — "currently valid" findings are the ones no other row supersedes.
scripts/test.sh now spins up a disposable Postgres container so the
store's integration tests (including the append-only guarantee) actually
run on every test.sh/release.sh invocation instead of silently skipping
for lack of DATABASE_URL.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
