Skip to content

Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419

Open
Open
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
Labels
domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security

Description

@baozhoutao
baozhoutao
opened on Aug 30, 2026

Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).

The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)

  • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
  • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.

⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.

The question

Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.

Re-check

On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides · Issue #13419 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
    Skip to content
    Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419
    Open
    Open
    Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
    Labels
    domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
    Description
    @baozhoutao
    baozhoutao
    opened on Aug 30, 2026
    Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).
    The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)
    • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
    • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.
    ⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.
    The question
    Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.
    Re-check
    On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    No one assigned
      Labels
      domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides · Issue #13419 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
      Skip to content
      Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419
      Open
      Open
      Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
      Labels
      domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
      Description
      @baozhoutao
      baozhoutao
      opened on Aug 30, 2026
      Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).
      The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)
      • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
      • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.
      ⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.
      The question
      Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.
      Re-check
      On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides · Issue #13419 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
        Skip to content
        Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419
        Open
        Open
        Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
        Labels
        domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
        Description
        @baozhoutao
        baozhoutao
        opened on Aug 30, 2026
        Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).
        The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)
        • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
        • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.
        ⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.
        The question
        Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.
        Re-check
        On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        No one assigned
          Labels
          domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides · Issue #13419 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
          Skip to content
          Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419
          Open
          Open
          Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
          Labels
          domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
          Description
          @baozhoutao
          baozhoutao
          opened on Aug 30, 2026
          Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).
          The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)
          • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
          • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.
          ⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.
          The question
          Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.
          Re-check
          On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides · Issue #13419 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
            Skip to content
            Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419
            Open
            Open
            Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
            Labels
            domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
            Description
            @baozhoutao
            baozhoutao
            opened on Aug 30, 2026
            Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).
            The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)
            • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
            • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.
            ⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.
            The question
            Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.
            Re-check
            On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            No one assigned
              Labels
              domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
})();
Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides · Issue #13419 · objectstack-ai/objectstack · GitHub
              Skip to content
              Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides #13419
              Open
              Open
              Permission-set resolution binds by POSITION NAME while sys_position_permission_set sits near-empty — confirm name-based resolution is the intended mechanism, not an accident the empty junction hides#13419
              Labels
              domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
              Description
              @baozhoutao
              baozhoutao
              opened on Aug 30, 2026
              Filed at destination by the repo:cloud execution seat (objectstack#6026, session session_01EzWYDkwr6WEwDGhMH1Jzuq, R22) from the cloud#1628 verification run's handed-up observations. Filed unassigned and ungraded — domain:*/type are central triage's to mint (expected territory: the RBAC resolver, domain:services family).
              The observation (measured on cloud's walled rig at cloud pin 1a540e82, composed HotCRM artifact)
              • sys_position_permission_set holds exactly one row per organization: everyone → member_default. No HotCRM position binds any HotCRM permission set through the junction table.
              • Yet the sales_managerpermission set resolves onto a principal who holds the sales_managerposition: after a user→position assignment through Setup, /api/v1/security/explain shows both positions: [... "sales_manager" ...] and permissionSets: ["sales_manager", ...] — with no junction row connecting them.
              ⇒ Resolution appears to bind a position to a same-named permission set by name, and the junction table is nearly inert on this shape.
              The question
              Is name-based binding the declared mechanism (in which case: where is it declared, and what is sys_position_permission_set for — an override? an addition? dead?), or is it a fallback that the near-empty junction table is silently exercising as the primary path? Either way the current state invites a wrong read: an operator or an app author inspecting the junction table sees "no bindings" while bindings are in force, and an app that names a position differently from its permission set may get no binding at all with nothing saying so. Declared-vs-enforced discipline wants one authoritative answer.
              Re-check
              On any walled rig with the composed HotCRM artifact: assign a user to sales_manager through Setup, then compare /api/v1/security/explain for that principal against SELECT * FROM sys_position_permission_set. cloud's scripts/dev-local/verify-position-surface.mjs (cloud PR #1760) automates the surrounding steps.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                domain:servicespm:on-holdpriority:p1High: required for production / M2security
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions