Implementation brief

## Who Uses It
A governance team tracking rule changes and internal policy updates.

## What You Will Build
Build an agent that compares a supplied rule feed with company policies and creates a policy-change work queue. Explain applicability, identify gaps, and draft owner-assigned updates with evidence.

## Inputs
- Versioned rule records
- Internal policy register
- Company scope and policy owners

## Workflow
1. Classify rule versions, status, and effective dates.
2. Determine applicability using the supplied company profile.
3. Compare applicable requirements with current policies.
4. Draft a gap report and assign proposed work to policy owners.

## Interface
A rule-change dashboard with applicability decisions, policy comparisons, proposed edits, and owner assignments.

## Working Demo
Create a proposed quarterly review update for P1 assigned to IT Governance, and keep R2 on a monitoring list.

## Deliverables
- A working local application with the specified review interface.
- Source code, dependency lockfile, and setup commands.
- A recorded end-to-end demo using the supplied starter data.
- Example outputs, action logs, and automated tests.

## Starter Data
These fictional records are a small development fixture, not a production dataset. Implement the mock services described in the brief.

```json
{
  "as_of": "2026-09-19",
  "company_scope": "Region A",
  "rules": [
    {
      "id": "R1",
      "scope": "Region A",
      "status": "final",
      "effective": "2026-09-01",
      "requires": "quarterly access review"
    },
    {
      "id": "R2",
      "scope": "Region A",
      "status": "proposal",
      "requires": "monthly access review"
    }
  ],
  "policies": [
    {
      "id": "P1",
      "control": "annual access review",
      "owner": "IT Governance"
    }
  ]
}
```

## Constraints
Use fictional requirements. Do not represent the result as actual legal compliance advice.
Choose an available model that supports your implementation. Record its identifier and version.

## Evaluation
Review the complete application, not only the starter-case answers.
- The gap cites R1 and P1.
- R2 is not treated as an effective obligation.
- The proposed change has an owner and requires approval.
Add one normal case, one incomplete-input case, and one failure-recovery case.