Two open questions from §5 promoted to decisions in §2:
§2.1.c — Topology: one HAP bridge, N child accessories. Single pairing
flow; child accessories assignable to rooms in the Apple Home
app; matches every reference HomeKit bridge UX (Hue, Eve, ...).
The N-independent-accessories alternative was rejected for the
room-multiplication mess it creates after the second pairing.
§2.1.d — Identity-risk mapping is semantic, not probabilistic. The
raw `identity_risk_score` and Soul-Signature match probability
NEVER cross the HAP boundary. Instead we expose three thresholded
semantic events: `Unknown Presence`, `Unexpected Occupancy`,
`Unrecognized Activity Pattern`. Naming is the contract — these
read as ambient awareness, not threat detection, so RuView does
not become "RF surveillance with an Apple skin." This is the
decision that determines whether the HomeKit story ages well.
§5 trimmed to two genuinely-open items: setup-code derivation
(deterministic vs random) and ESP32-direct HAP advertisement.
Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
82fecbb5ad