Disclosure is not a fix

Disclosure Is Not A Fix

Purpose

Writing down a known defect does not resolve it. Disclosure is a documentation act: it manages the reader's expectations but leaves the defect fully present. The trap is that a well-written caveat feels like diligence and quietly substitutes for the fix. When you're about to ship something with a "known limitation" note, the honest bar is one of two things: ship the cheapest available mitigation, OR record an explicit, reasoned decision NOT to mitigate — why, and what would change it. The disclosure itself is neither. "We disclosed it" is not a disposition.

When to use this skill

• The moment you reach for the words "known limitation", "known issue", "caveat", "we're aware", "for now", "not yet handled", or "advisory" in something you're about to ship.
• When a review, audit, or test surfaced a real defect and your instinct is to document it rather than fix it.
• When leaving a TODO/FIXME in code that is about to ship, or a "trap wanted"/"placeholder"/"not implemented" marker in a released artifact.
• Whenever an item is about to be closed on the strength of a note that describes the problem instead of resolving it.

When NOT to use

• The defect is already mitigated or already carries a written, dated decision-not-to-fix — this skill's job is done; don't re-litigate.
• Genuinely adjacent problems you were not asked to touch — those are scope-fence's flag list, not a defect in the thing you are shipping.
• Pure release notes / changelog entries that describe resolved behavior. Disclosure of a fixed thing is fine; this skill governs disclosure standing in for an unfixed thing.

The procedure

1. Name the defect and its real user-facing consequence — the unsoftened version. Not "the parser has some edge cases" but "malformed input silently produces wrong totals the user will act on."
2. Find the CHEAPEST mitigation. It is often far cheaper than the defect's cost: reword an ungradeable criterion, add a guard, put a one-line warning at the point of danger, disable the broken path, remove the live rule. Cost the mitigation against the cost of the defect biting a real user.
3. If mitigating now is viable, do it. The cheap fix beats the elegant note.
4. If not mitigating, write the explicit decision: why deferring is acceptable, who it affects, and the concrete trigger that would force the fix — dated. A deferral with no recorded reason and no re-trigger is not a decision; it's an unfixed defect wearing a caveat.
5. Put the disclosure where the defect BITES — the entrypoint, command, screen, or Quick Start where the hazard fires — not only in a distant NOTES/known-issues section the user won't reach in time.
6. Never let "we disclosed it" close the item. The item closes on a mitigation or a recorded decision. Disclosure alone leaves it open.

Quality bar

• No shipped known-defect without either a mitigation or a written, dated decision-not-to-fix.
• The warning sits where the hazard is triggered, not only in a file the endangered user never opens in time.
• The cheapest mitigation was actually considered and costed against the defect — not skipped on the way to writing the caveat.
• If deferred: the note names who it affects and the trigger that reopens it.

Common failure modes

• Disclosure-as-absolution: a caveat in the README while the broken thing ships unchanged. The reader is warned; the defect is untouched.
• Warning in the wrong place: a root NOTES/known-issues entry while the dangerous Quick Start has no banner. The people who hit the hazard never saw the note.
• "We found one instance": documenting a single occurrence without sweeping the class — the same defect lives in the two rubrics/files you didn't check.
• Silent deferral: pushing the fix to "later" with no recorded reason and no re-trigger, so nothing ever reopens it.
• Disclosed-but-live: leaving a proven-ungradeable criterion or a broken rule active because it was disclosed — every user now reproduces the known noise you already knew about.

Works with sibling skills

• scope-fence defers adjacent issues you were not asked to fix; this skill governs a defect in the thing you ARE shipping — mitigate-or-decide, don't just note.
• failure-mode-awareness identifies risks at design time; this skill governs the disposition of a known one at ship time.
• adversarial-verify surfaces the defect in finished work; this skill decides what shipping it honestly requires once it's surfaced.

Provenance and maintenance

Added 2026-07-09 after an audit found three instances of disclosure substituting for a fix: a public eval tool shipping a grading criterion its own study had proven ungradeable — disclosed in the study doc, but the criterion still live in two rubrics, so every user reproduced the known noise; a taxonomy repo whose entries said "trap wanted" for traps a sibling repo had already published; and an abandoned bot whose dangerous Quick Start had no do-not-run banner despite a root verdict condemning it. Re-verify: on the next "known limitation" you write, check whether a cheaper mitigation existed and whether the item was closed on disclosure alone.