TSE compliance, audit & governance command center (workflow engine, explainable rules, ABAC+dual-control, hash-chained audit) — STAFF-level

[grantfox-oss]

DESCRIPTION

This is a staff/principal-level initiative to build VELAR's TSE compliance, audit & governance command center — a regulator-grade system with the rigor a senior engineer with years of experience brings to audit and workflow platforms. It goes far beyond a review list: a formally-specified workflow engine with optimistic concurrency and compensations, an explainable + versioned + backtestable rules/policy engine, policy-based (ABAC) authorization with segregation of duties and dual-control approvals, on-chain reconciliation that tolerates eventual consistency, a cryptographically chained (hash-linked) audit log for tamper evidence, an SLA/escalation engine, BI-grade compliance analytics with forecasting, and streaming tamper-evident exports. Critically, the entire system must be designed to be verified locally with in-memory fakes, simulations, and property/concurrency tests — no VELAR database, secrets, or external APIs required.

GOAL

A correct-by-design regulator command center where TSE staff triage an assignable, SLA-tracked queue; each report is reconciled against on-chain data and scored by an explainable, versioned rules engine; decisions flow through a formally-specified workflow with dual-control and optimistic concurrency; every action is written to a hash-chained immutable audit log; and compliance is monitored, forecast, and exported — all provable via fakes/simulations and property/concurrency tests, no live infrastructure.

REQUIREMENTS

Workflow engine (formally specified)

• Model the review workflow as a formally-specified state machine (enviado → en_revisión → observado → corregido/reenviado → aprobado/rechazado) with typed guards, effects, and compensations. Enforce legal-only transitions, optimistic concurrency (version/etag; reject stale writes), and dual-control ("four-eyes") approvals where required. Prove properties (no illegal transition reachable, idempotent transition handlers).

Rules / policy engine (explainable, versioned, backtestable)

• A rules engine evaluating reports against declared vs on-chain data: produce typed, explainable discrepancy findings (amount mismatch, missing/unknown bond refs, totals not reconciling, overdue, threshold breaches) each with a severity score and a human-readable explanation trace.
• Versioned rule sets with the ability to backtest a rule set against historical fixtures and diff outcomes. Deterministic; exhaustive + property-based tests.
• On-chain reconciliation that tolerates eventual consistency (confirmation/tolerance windows, re-check semantics) fed by fixtures.

Authorization, audit, SLA

• ABAC / policy-based authorization (attributes: role, assignment, party scope, amount thresholds) with segregation of duties; TSE reviewer vs admin vs delegated access. Enforced in the backend.
• A hash-chained immutable audit log (each entry links the previous entry's hash) with a verifier that detects tampering/gaps; every command appends an entry.
• An SLA + escalation engine: per-item due dates, breach detection, escalation ladders, and notifications/escalations (via the notifications platform; mocked).

Analytics, exports, frontend

• BI-grade compliance analytics as pure functions: per-party compliance rate, overdue/at-risk, on-time trends, reviewer workload/SLA attainment, and a simple forecast (e.g. projected overdue). Exhaustively tested.
• Streaming, tamper-evident exports (CSV/PDF) of decisions and compliance reports (deterministic from fixtures; large-export streaming design).
• Frontend command center (apps/web/app/tse/reportes/, revision/, auditoria/, analytics/): assignable queue with server-side filter/sort/cursor pagination and saved views; a side-by-side reconciliation review workspace with explainable findings and a dual-control decision panel; the hash-chained audit-trail viewer with integrity status; KPIs/forecast charts; exports. RBAC-aware, localized, responsive, accessible.

Data & observability

• Migrations (FILES) for workflow versioning/concurrency, rule-set versions, audit-chain, SLA config — with indexing strategy + RLS. Observability: metrics (queue depth, SLA breaches, decision latency, rule-eval counts) behind interfaces.

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

• Property/concurrency tests prove: no illegal workflow transition is reachable; optimistic-concurrency rejects stale writes; dual-control requires two distinct authorized approvers; and transition handlers are idempotent — all against in-memory fakes.
• Rules-engine tests (incl. property-based + backtest-diff) prove correct, explainable, severity-scored findings across clean/mismatch/missing/overdue/threshold cases and across rule-set versions.
• The hash-chained audit log verifier detects any tampering or gap (tested); every command appends an entry.
• ABAC/segregation-of-duties tests prove reviewer/admin/delegated/party boundaries; on-chain reconciliation tests cover confirmation/tolerance windows.
• SLA/escalation and analytics/forecast are unit-tested (edge cases: empty/single/sparse); exports are deterministic and streaming-designed.
• Every external dependency (notifications, file access, on-chain data, observability) is a fake/stub; the whole system runs in tests with no live infra.
• Frontend (fakes/fixtures): queue + cursor pagination + saved views, reconciliation workspace with dual-control, audit-chain viewer, KPIs/forecast, exports — all work with RBAC.
• New types/interfaces exported from packages/types; migrations present, append-only, with RLS + documented indexing.
• npm run build, npm run lint, npm run test pass in apps/api and apps/web with NO VELAR credentials.
• Docs updated (docs/BACKEND.md, docs/FRONTEND_GUIDE.md) with the workflow spec, rules-engine + backtesting, ABAC model, audit-chain design, SLA engine, and exports.

NOTES

Relevant files: apps/api/src/reports/ (major expansion), apps/api/src/analytics/, apps/api/src/audit/audit.service.ts, apps/api/src/notifications/notifications.service.ts, apps/api/src/auth/roles.guard.ts, apps/api/src/auth/roles.decorator.ts, apps/api/src/common/, apps/api/src/common/supabase/supabase.service.ts, apps/web/app/tse/reportes/, apps/web/app/tse/revision/, apps/web/app/tse/auditoria/, apps/web/app/tse/analytics/, apps/web/components/, apps/web/lib/, packages/types/src/audit.ts, packages/types/src/roles.ts, packages/types/src/index.ts, supabase/migrations/. EXTEND the existing review endpoint (PATCH /reports/:id/review), don't rewrite (docs/AGENTS.md §3). Depends on the party-side "Monthly report lifecycle" epic for the report/version schema. audit_events is append-only and authorization is backend-owned (docs/AGENTS.md §5).

No VELAR credentials required: the entire system must be exercisable via in-memory fakes/simulations and property/concurrency tests — do NOT use VELAR's database, passwords, service_role, or any external API/provider key.

Difficulty: Staff / Principal — senior (years of experience in audit/workflow/governance systems), maximum complexity
Priority: High

CAMPAIGN REQUIREMENTS (FWC26)

To be eligible for the reward on this issue, the contributor must:

• Follow Velar on X: https://x.com/VelarApp
• Star the repository: https://github.com/Velar-Bonds/Velar
• Follow the Velar-Bonds organization on GitHub: https://github.com/Velar-Bonds

[Primex-hub]

I will like to take this job

[MerlinTheWhiz]

Hello, I'm MerlinThewhiz, a software engineer with a strong background in smart contract, and a couple years in my arsenal. Having read the task requirement, I'd love to work on this issue. Please assign.

[Joaco2603]

Hi Velar team! I’d like to take ownership of this issue.

I understand that this is not a single-feature implementation, but a staff-level initiative involving workflow correctness, policy evaluation, authorization, audit integrity, reconciliation, analytics, exports, and frontend integration.

My proposed approach is to deliver it through stacked, independently reviewable PRs:

1. Architecture and formal specification

   • Document the workflow state machine, legal transitions, guards, effects, compensations, concurrency model, dual-control rules, ABAC policies, audit-chain format, and module boundaries.
   • Review the existing PATCH /reports/:id/review implementation and extend it rather than replacing it.
   • Define the interfaces required to run everything with in-memory fakes.

2. Workflow and authorization foundations

   • Typed workflow engine with version/etag optimistic concurrency.
   • Idempotent command handling.
   • Dual-control approvals requiring two distinct authorized actors.
   • Backend-owned ABAC and segregation-of-duties enforcement.
   • Property-based and concurrency tests using in-memory repositories.

3. Rules engine and reconciliation

   • Deterministic, versioned rule sets.
   • Explainable and severity-scored findings.
   • Historical fixture backtesting and outcome diffs.
   • Eventual-consistency reconciliation with confirmation and tolerance windows.

4. Audit, SLA and analytics

   • Hash-linked append-only audit entries and integrity verifier.
   • SLA deadlines, breach detection and escalation ladders.
   • Pure analytics and forecasting functions with edge-case coverage.
   • Fake notification and observability adapters.

5. Exports and command-center frontend

   • Deterministic streaming exports.
   • Queue, saved views and cursor pagination.
   • Reconciliation workspace and dual-control decision UI.
   • Audit integrity viewer, KPIs, forecast charts and RBAC-aware states.

6. Migrations, integration and documentation

   • Append-only migrations with RLS and indexing documentation.
   • Shared types exported from packages/types.
   • Full build, lint and test verification without Velar credentials.
   • Updates to docs/BACKEND.md and docs/FRONTEND_GUIDE.md.

I will keep external systems behind interfaces and use only fixtures, fakes and simulations during development. I will not use Velar credentials, service-role access or live providers.

Before beginning implementation, I would submit the architecture document as the first PR so the workflow semantics, module boundaries and integration with the Monthly Report Lifecycle epic can be reviewed early.

I have also reviewed the contributor requirements for this campaign and will ensure they are completed before claiming the reward.

Could you assign this issue to me? I can begin with the architecture and workflow specification.

[mmongee]

Hey I'm Michael, software developer with 6 months of experience.
I want to tackle this one!