The operator page still said every grant is read-only, one release after
the write level shipped, and the table of what a grant cannot reach
predates both the manage level and managed profiles.
Rewritten against the frozen behaviour: the eight sections a grant can be
narrowed to and what each opens, the three levels and what each adds, the
step-up that is unconditional on a managed profile and conditional on an
ordinary invitation, and what a guardian may keep for a record that has no
login of its own. The AI row is corrected rather than dropped: a manage
grant reads insights that already exist, and no level causes an outbound
provider call.
Every claim on that page was read out of the code before it was written
down. The one about backups was cut instead, because it was not.
The revoke dialog tells an owner that "who entered what" stays answerable for
N days, and the activity list prints the same number under its heading. The
query behind that list had no date filter: on an instance whose retention was
shortened it showed rows the sentence said were already gone, and the number
was a caption over an unbounded read rather than its limit. It is the filter
now, resolved once so the bound and the sentence cannot drift apart.
The list also stopped at a hundred rows and said nothing about it, which is the
more dangerous of the two silences — an owner who scrolls to the bottom reads
the oldest visible line as the beginning, and a busy household reaches the cap
in a fraction of the window. The response says which of the two limits it hit,
and the view states it only when it did: a caveat that is always on is one
people learn to skip.
The self-hosting page said an empty list means nobody opened the record. It
means nobody did so within the window. Corrected, with the row cap named
alongside it.
An operator page for the feature, written in the register the
reproductive-health page established: say the narrow true thing rather
than the reassuring one.
What the person given access can reach, and the table of what they cannot
— credentials, sessions, tokens, connected services, notification
channels, exports, share links, the sharing itself, and the AI surfaces.
The AI row gets its own paragraph because it is the one that looks
arbitrary: server-managed processing runs under the consent the record's
owner gave for their own use.
Revocation is described honestly. It lands on the next request rather
than the next login, it puts a browser that was inside the record back
into its own account, and it cannot take back what was already seen. The
product can close the door; it cannot reach through it, and the page says
so rather than implying otherwise.
The activity view's window is described as the operator's setting, not as
365 — an instance that shortens the audit retention shortens this view,
and an empty list means nothing was recorded within the window rather
than that nothing ever happened.
The three trust facts stay where they were: the operator could always
read the database, encryption at rest is instance-keyed rather than
per-user, and AI processing stays under the owner's own consent.
The data-protection note is deliberately absent — its stance is a
maintainer decision, and the page reads complete without it.
Marc-André Bombeck