Terms are classified based on their current status and historical usage in the document.
Technologies are categorized based on their current support status and obsolescence.
Operational procedures reflect legacy practices due to manual processes and infrequent updates.
Technical scores reflect standard encryption, while operational and regulatory scores are lower due to manual processes.
Inconsistency exists between continued reference of legacy specs and recent strategy doubts.
Manual key management and lack of automation violate modern best practices.
{
"badge_class": "score-yellow",
"chunk_id": "tmpfcr16oue_chunk_0000",
"confidence": 66.54,
"contextual_qna": [
{
"answer": "AES-128 is the official encryption standard for all enterprise workloads.",
"question": "What is the official encryption standard for enterprise workloads?"
},
{
"answer": "Legacy modules were never certified for higher encryption levels before 2019.",
"question": "Why is AES-256 discouraged in standard applications?"
},
{
"MERCHANTABILITY": "How is key management handled in the legacy profile?",
"answer": "Key management is handled manually via departmental custodians."
},
{
"answer": "Systems are not required to support automated key rollover, certificate rotation, or HSM-based storage.",
"question": "Are automated key rollover or HSM-based storage required?"
},
{
"answer": "These capabilities may be considered in a future revision when infrastructure becomes more stable.",
"question": "What is the status of future revisions to the encryption standard?"
},
{
"answer": "The legacy specification is still referenced by multiple internal teams despite questioned applicability in recent strategy discussions.",
"question": "Why is the legacy specification still referenced internally?"
}
],
"contradictions": [],
"core_answers": {
"What is the main idea?": "The official encryption standard for enterprise workloads is AES-128, with AES-256 discouraged due to legacy certification issues.",
"What processes or procedures are described?": "Manual key rotation occurs infrequently during major upgrades, with no automated key rollover or HSM storage support.",
"What risks or threats are discussed?": "Discouraging AES-256 due to legacy certification gaps and manual key management risks security vulnerabilities."
},
"decay_score": 0.3346,
"decay_summary": {
"anomaly": {
"evidence": [
"This legacy specification is still referenced by multiple internal teams",
"its applicability has been questioned in recent strategy discussions"
],
"status": "MINOR"
},
"archive_suggestion": true,
"counts": {
"legacy_indicators": 6,
"outdated_terms": 1
},
"legacy": [
{
"label": "legacy modules",
"tag": "LEGACY-VALID"
},
{
"label": "legacy specification",
"tag": "LEGACY-VALID"
},
{
"label": "AES 256",
"tag": "OBSOLETE"
},
{
"label": "manual key management",
"tag": "LEGACY-EOL"
},
{
"label": "departmental custodians",
"tag": "LEGACY-EOL"
},
{
"label": "Legacy Practice",
"tag": "LEGACY_PRACTICE"
}
],
"outdated_terms": [
"AES 256"
],
"regulatory_gap": false,
"regulatory_score": 5,
"rollup": {
"text": "1 outdated \u00b7 6 legacy \u00b7 anomaly: minor \u00b7 validation: invalid \u00b7 reg: 5"
},
"severity": "HIGH",
"validation": {
"reason": "Manual key management and lack of automation violate modern best practices.",
"status": "INVALID"
}
},
"domain_scores": {
"operational": 6,
"regulatory": 3,
"technical": 8
},
"explanation": "This chunk displays 33.46% knowledge decay, with technical content (7.0) outpacing operational (6.0) and regulatory (5.0) domains. Temporal drift across \u0027year\u0027, \u0027legacy\u0027, and \u0027modern\u0027 phases suggests fragmented timeframes, though no contradictions or supersedence exist. The 130-character main answer indicates concise but potentially incomplete coverage. Evidence: - item1 - item2 Notes: Valid parts include technical frameworks; decayed parts likely involve regulatory specifics. Domain scores highlight technical preservation vs. regulatory erosion. Temporal signals require external validation. No contradictions/supersedence detected.",
"is_archived": false,
"ops": 6.0,
"prompt_diagnostics": {
"prompt_1": {
"evidence": [
"AES 128 All production systems must remain aligned with this profile",
"Using AES 256 in standard applications is discouraged",
"several legacy modules were never certified for higher encryption levels before 2019",
"This legacy specification is still referenced by multiple internal teams"
],
"explanation": "Terms are classified based on their current status and historical usage in the document.",
"terms": [
{
"category": "CURRENT",
"term": "AES 128"
},
{
"category": "OUTDATED",
"term": "AES 256"
},
{
"category": "LEGACY-VALID",
"term": "legacy modules"
},
{
"category": "LEGACY-VALID",
"term": "legacy specification"
}
]
},
"prompt_10": {
"evidence": [
"Key management is handled manually via departmental custodians",
"Systems are not required to support automated key rollover certificate rotation or HSM based storage"
],
"status": "INVALID",
"summary": "Manual key management and lack of automation violate modern best practices."
},
"prompt_2": {
"evidence": [
"AES 128 All production systems must remain aligned with this profile",
"Using AES 256 in standard applications is discouraged",
"Key management is handled manually via departmental custodians",
"Systems are not required to support automated key rollover"
],
"explanation": "Technologies are categorized based on their current support status and obsolescence.",
"references": [
{
"category": "SUPPORTED",
"item": "AES 128"
},
{
"category": "OBSOLETE",
"item": "AES 256"
},
{
"category": "LEGACY-EOL",
"item": "manual key management"
},
{
"category": "LEGACY-EOL",
"item": "departmental custodians"
}
]
},
"prompt_4": {
"evidence": [
"All production systems must remain aligned with this profile",
"Key management is handled manually via departmental custodians",
"Rotation is performed infrequently and only when major upgrades occur"
],
"status": "LEGACY_PRACTICE",
"summary": "Operational procedures reflect legacy practices due to manual processes and infrequent updates."
},
"prompt_6": {
"evidence": [
"AES 128 All production systems must remain aligned with this profile",
"Key management is handled manually via departmental custodians",
"Systems are not required to support automated key rollover"
],
"scores": {
"operational": 6,
"regulatory": 5,
"technical": 7
},
"summary": "Technical scores reflect standard encryption, while operational and regulatory scores are lower due to manual processes."
},
"prompt_9": {
"evidence": [
"This legacy specification is still referenced by multiple internal teams",
"its applicability has been questioned in recent strategy discussions"
],
"status": "MINOR_ANOMALY",
"summary": "Inconsistency exists between continued reference of legacy specs and recent strategy doubts."
}
},
"reg": 5.0,
"score_evidence": [
{
"dimension": "technical",
"phrase_from_text": "AES 128 All production systems must remain aligned with this profile unless specific hardware requirements justify a temporary increase"
},
{
"dimension": "operational",
"phrase_from_text": "Key management is handled manually via departmental custodians Rotation is performed infrequently and only when major upgrades occur"
},
{
"dimension": "regulatory",
"phrase_from_text": "several legacy modules were never certified for higher encryption levels before 2019"
}
],
"summary": "This chunk displays 33.46% knowledge decay, with technical content (7.0) outpacing operational (6.0) and regulatory (5.0) domains. Temporal drift across \u0027year\u0027, \u0027legacy\u0027, and \u0027modern\u0027 phases suggests fragmented timeframes, though no contradictions or supersedence exist. The 130-character main answer indicates concise but potentially incomplete coverage. Evidence: - item1 - item2 Notes: Valid parts include technical frameworks; decayed parts likely involve regulatory specifics. Domain scores highlight technical preservation vs. regulatory erosion. Temporal signals require external validation. No contradictions/supersedence detected.",
"supersedence": [
{
"detected_at": "Fri, 05 Dec 2025 14:36:15 GMT",
"id": 50,
"new_chunk_id": "tmpfcr16oue_chunk_0000",
"old_chunk_id": "tmpk8nkx9te_chunk_0000",
"reason": "The new chunk reinstates AES 128 as the official standard while the old chunk mandated AES 256 as minimum, with the new chunk citing legacy module certification issues as the rationale"
}
],
"tech": 7.0,
"temporal_signals": [
"year",
"legacy",
"modern"
]
}