Skip to content
arula

Meridian Engineering / Lab 2

Out of scope

Consult the sources that support your understanding, decisions, and evidence throughout the work.

Your orientation Reference · supports every work phaseIntuition · Common language · Habit

Where you are in the work

  1. Define / Plan
  2. Execute
  3. Judge
  4. Learn

What you are developing

Intuition

Recognize when a proposed decision exceeds the evidence or scope.

Common language / Standardization

Make authority, exclusions, requirements, and readiness explicit.

Habit / Behavior

Trace decisions to sources; keep unknowns explicit instead of inventing defaults.

Use this material alongside the stage you are working on. Return to the complete journey.

Out of scope

Write-protected. This document is authority, not a worksheet. The deterministic write gate blocks edits to it.

Everything below is excluded from this change. Implementing any of it is a hard fail regardless of how well the rest of the work is done — not because the behaviour is wrong in general, but because it is not this change, and a payment-grade change that quietly grows is the failure mode this lab exists to prevent.

Excluded by the source specification

Item Source
All Void flows — Void-Auth, Void-Capture, Void-Pay, Void-Refund Spec 1, “Out of scope”
Pre-settlement reversals Spec 1, “Out of scope”
Unsettled transactions Spec 1, “Out of scope”
Non-card refunds Spec 1, “Out of scope”
DCF and settlement data generation — handled downstream, not in this service Spec 1, “Out of scope”
Pre-risk assessment on subsequent refunds — there is none; inventing a risk or fraud call fabricates a dependency Spec 1, “Out of scope”
Excessive refund (EXCESSIVE_REFUNDS) — a later phase Spec 1, Phase 1.1
Partial refund, scheme-token and device-payment cases — a later phase Spec 1, Phase 2

Outside the lab runtime

Represented in the wider flow, deliberately not implemented here:

  • CPC behaviour and ownership beyond the online/offline state supplied at the seam
  • Refund injection, LCS API, DCF generation and the settlement lifecycle
  • A3RS, BECS, BPSS and surrounding platform components
  • ISO 8583 and DE48 mapping, settlement-specific field processing
  • Production routing, regional and blue-green topology
  • The production CI/CD, integration-environment and release-governance path
  • Merchant-privilege enforcement — the source establishes the privileges but does not assign enforcement to a component in this slice. See docs/PGS_DECISIONS.md open question 12.3.

Nearby code is not authorisation

Code adjacent to the refund path may look reusable, may compile, and may appear to be waiting to be finished. Adjacency is not permission. If you believe something out of scope genuinely must change, the correct action is to record it and escalate — not to implement it and mention it afterwards.


Download the unchanged original source