Marc-André Bombeck c809971a23 docs(sharing): name the screener's score row where the section is consented ...

`POST /api/mental-health/assessments` is fenced on `mind` and writes one row
into `measurements`: the instrument's total, minted `COMPUTED` and keyed on the
administration it came from, so the trend reads through the chart and rollup
tier without the encrypted item answers going anywhere. A grant scoped to mood
and mind therefore adds a point to the owner's measurement series, and nothing
said so.

Left in place rather than fenced. Withholding the projection the way the
booster mint is now fenced would file a screener whose own total is missing
from the record — an inconsistency inside the section the grant does open, to
avoid a derived point in one it does not. So it is documented instead, in the
three places it is decided or agreed to: the declaration, the section's own
definition, and the consent copy in all seven locales, which is where a
widening belongs. The published operation says it too.

2026-09-10 11:15:50 +02:00

2.4 MiB

Raw Blame History