Every convention gets an owning sensor or a filed gap

## Spark

Digest, week of 2026-07-25: dungeon-studio/genshin.dungeon.studio#1014 audits every convention the repo claims and requires each one to name an enforcing tool or a filed gap. A dozen gap issues came out of it in one sitting. The same week's strongest highlight was about ownership failing when responsibility outruns control.

## Why it could be interesting

A convention documented but unenforced makes you accountable for something you don't control — the exact failure mode Economakis describes for on-call teams, relocated to your own repo. The move isn't "add more linters", it's making the coverage gap an explicit, tracked liability rather than an unstated one. An audit that outputs tickets is a different artifact from an audit that outputs a score.

## Open questions

- [ ] What's the actual inventory format — does the audit live as a doc, a checklist, or only as the issue graph?
- [ ] Which conventions turned out to be unenforceable in principle vs merely unenforced?
- [ ] How does this relate to #189's computational/inferential split — is "has an owning sensor" the same question as "which kind of sensor"?
- [ ] Does the filed-gap ticket ever get closed as "won't enforce", and is that an honest outcome or a leak?

## Source material

- Parent: https://github.com/dungeon-studio/genshin.dungeon.studio/issues/1014
- Gaps: https://github.com/dungeon-studio/genshin.dungeon.studio/issues/1015 through /1022, plus /1029
- Same shape in Haskell: https://github.com/alunduil/collection-json.hs/issues/211, /212, /213, /214
- Highlight, "Why Reliability Starts With Responsibility" (Spiros Economakis): https://read.readwise.io/read/01kymwaxbjvsp42qwz0tvy3cqf — "Ownership fails when teams are held responsible for something they don't control, when they lack the knowledge to act effectively, or when they aren't accountable for the consequences of their actions."
- Related: #189, #287