Scope and boundaries

Clear review scope. Clear stopping points.

This page explains what a CapyraWorks review can reasonably cover, why repository-visible evidence is the default starting point, and where the interpretation intentionally stops.

What is reviewed

The boundary starts with visible artifacts.

CapyraWorks reviews the agreed repository-visible material made available for the engagement. This may include:

Infrastructure-as-code, platform code, and supporting configuration repositories agreed in scope
Service, deployment, workflow, policy-adjacent, and governance-relevant configuration visible in those materials
IAM, access-control, and CI/CD configuration where it is present and relevant to infrastructure or governance evidence
Repository structure, deployment definitions, module usage, and configuration evidence
AI-context or payment-environment indicators only where they are visible, relevant, and agreed in scope

The review is based on what can be reasonably observed from the agreed materials. It does not assume that repository evidence alone proves deployed runtime state.

Access posture

Read-only access or agreed source export by default.

Read-only repository or organization-level access is preferred when direct access is used.
Access should be temporary, limited to the agreed review scope, and removed after the engagement unless otherwise agreed.
Production-console, live-service, runtime-system, and operational-control-plane access are not required by default.
Client-supplied checked-out repositories or agreed source exports can be used when direct repository access is not preferred or permitted.

Deliberately bounded

Evidence-backed, not assurance-claiming.

Repository evidence can support careful interpretation, but it cannot by itself establish deployed reality, legal standing, audit conclusions, or security guarantees.

A CapyraWorks review does not provide:

Penetration testing, exploit activity, runtime monitoring, or runtime topology reconstruction
Formal audit opinions, legal opinions, compliance certifications, or security certifications
Maturity, readiness, or control-effectiveness scoring
A replacement for scanners, internal ownership, team judgment, or audit/assurance work
A guarantee of vulnerability absence, incident prevention, runtime security, or availability
A claim that repository-visible evidence proves operating reality

When it helps

Useful when the next review question is still unclear.

CapyraWorks is most useful when the organization has repository-visible infrastructure or platform evidence, but needs a clearer way to turn that material into review questions, ownership conversations, and next-step decisions.

It is a good fit when

The question is about what visible artifacts can reasonably support
Read-only repository access or an agreed source export is the right starting point
Stakeholders need to separate evidence, assumptions, and missing context
Engineering, platform, security, or governance teams need a shared view of the same material
The next step depends on validation by repository, platform, security, or governance owners

If the question requires runtime proof, an audit or assurance conclusion, legal determination, or certification-level evidence, another process is needed.

Client ownership

Validation and decisions stay with the organization.

A review can clarify what needs to be checked next. It does not take over the authority, context, or accountability required to confirm runtime state, choose remediation, accept risk, or make governance and legal decisions.

Client-side ownership remains essential for

Confirming whether observed repository evidence matches deployed reality
Prioritizing remediation, acceptance, additional testing, or further evidence collection
Assigning architecture, security, governance, legal, compliance, and operational decisions
Maintaining evidence records and follow-up ownership after the review

Need to prepare repository-visible evidence for a governance, security, or audit-facing conversation?

Contact CapyraWorks