658 P6 Risk Validation 123f8670

Phase 6: Risk Validation

Type: Verification Executor: LLM Knowledge: CAPEC → ATT&CK → CVE/KEV, WSTG, MASTG

⚠️ MANDATORY OUTPUT RULES

CRITICAL: Phase 6 requires TWO outputs - a YAML data file AND a Markdown report.

Dual Output Requirement

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  PHASE 6 MUST PRODUCE TWO FILES:                                    │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                                      │
│  1. DATA FILE (PRIMARY - Write First!)                              │
│     Path: .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P6_validated_risks.yaml  │
│     Purpose: Structured validated risk data for P7 to read          │
│     Format: Valid YAML with schema_version: "3.0.0 (20260201a)"                   │
│                                                                      │
│  2. REPORT FILE (SECONDARY - Write After Data!)                     │
│     Path: .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/reports/P6-RISK-VALIDATION.md │
│     Purpose: Human-readable risk validation with POCs               │
│     Format: Markdown with attack chains and ASCII diagrams          │
│                                                                      │
│  INPUT REQUIREMENT:                                                  │
│     Read: .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P5_threat_inventory.yaml │
│     Read: .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P4_security_gaps.yaml    │
│     ❌ DO NOT read previous .md reports for data extraction         │
│     ✅ REQUIRED: Parse YAML files for threat_inventory, gaps        │
│                                                                      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Required Data Sections in YAML

Validation Gate

Phase 6 CANNOT complete until:

1. .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P6_validated_risks.yaml exists and is valid YAML
2. Count conservation: P5.total == verified + theoretical + pending + excluded
3. Critical/High risks have POC details
4. .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/reports/P6-RISK-VALIDATION.md exists

Error Handling

Fallback Strategy: If count conservation cannot be verified due to missing data, document the gap and set conservation_verified: false with note explaining the discrepancy.

Input Context

← ALL P1-P5: Read from .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P{1-5}_*.yaml

CRITICAL: Phase 6 consolidates ALL previous findings, not just Phase 5 threats.

⚠️ MANDATORY: Query P1-P5 Data Before Validation

Before starting P6 risk validation, LLM MUST execute these queries to obtain ALL upstream data:

# Step 1: Get aggregate summary from all phases
python scripts/phase_data.py --aggregate --phases 1,2,3,4,5 --format summary --root {PROJECT_ROOT}

# Step 2: Get P5 threat inventory (PRIMARY input)
python scripts/phase_data.py --query --phase 5 --type threats --root {PROJECT_ROOT}

# Step 3: Get P4 security gaps for consolidated view
python scripts/phase_data.py --query --phase 4 --type gaps --root {PROJECT_ROOT}

# Step 4: Verify P5 count for conservation formula
python scripts/phase_data.py --verify-p5-coverage --root {PROJECT_ROOT}

Or read YAML directly:

# PRIMARY sources - ALL REQUIRED for Count Conservation
cat .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P1_project_context.yaml
cat .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P2_dfd_elements.yaml
cat .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P3_boundary_context.yaml
cat .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P4_security_gaps.yaml
cat .phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P5_threat_inventory.yaml

CRITICAL: Count Conservation Formula MUST hold:

P5.threat_inventory.total = P6.verified + P6.theoretical + P6.pending + P6.excluded

Do NOT validate risks from memory. MUST read P5 threat data to verify counts!

⚠️ P6 Data Aggregation Contract (MANDATORY)

Phase 6 MUST aggregate data from ALL previous phases with explicit tracking:

# Required section in P6_validated_risks.yaml
input_aggregation:
  schema_version: "3.0.0 (20260201a)"
  aggregated_at: "2026-01-31T12:00:00Z"

  # Source file checksums for integrity verification
  source_files:
    P1_project_context:
      path: ".phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P1_project_context.yaml"
      exists: true
      checksum_sha256: "abc123..."  # Optional but recommended
    P2_dfd_elements:
      path: ".phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P2_dfd_elements.yaml"
      exists: true
    P3_boundary_context:
      path: ".phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P3_boundary_context.yaml"
      exists: true
    P4_security_gaps:
      path: ".phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P4_security_gaps.yaml"
      exists: true
    P5_threat_inventory:
      path: ".phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P5_threat_inventory.yaml"
      exists: true
      mandatory: true  # P6 cannot proceed without P5

  # Extracted counts from each phase (for verification)
  extracted_counts:
    p1_modules: 15
    p1_entry_points: 23
    p1_findings: 5           # F-P1-xxx count
    p2_dfd_elements: 45      # Total: EI + P + DS + DF
    p2_findings: 8           # F-P2-xxx count
    p3_boundaries: 6
    p3_findings: 3           # F-P3-xxx count
    p4_security_gaps: 12     # GAP-xxx count
    p5_threats: 67           # T-xxx count (PRIMARY for conservation)

  # Count Conservation Verification
  count_conservation:
    p5_total_threats: 67
    p6_verified: 15          # Confirmed exploitable
    p6_theoretical: 35       # Valid but not verified
    p6_pending: 10           # Awaiting verification
    p6_excluded: 7           # Not applicable with reason
    conservation_sum: 67     # MUST equal p5_total_threats
    conservation_verified: true
    verification_formula: "verified + theoretical + pending + excluded == p5_total"

    # If conservation fails, document discrepancy
    discrepancy_notes: null  # Or explain if conservation_verified: false

  # All Finding Sources Tracking
  findings_consolidation:
    total_findings_input: 28   # Sum of all F-P*-xxx + GAP-xxx
    findings_mapped_to_vr: 25  # Findings that contributed to VR-xxx
    findings_not_mapped: 3     # Findings not linked to any VR
    unmapped_findings:         # MUST document why each is unmapped
      - finding_id: F-P1-003
        reason: "Informational only, no security impact"
      - finding_id: F-P2-007
        reason: "Duplicate of GAP-004"
      - finding_id: GAP-011
        reason: "Mitigated in P4 assessment, control confirmed present"

Validation Rules:

• source_files.P5_threat_inventory.exists == false → BLOCKING: Return to P5
• count_conservation.conservation_verified == false → BLOCKING: Recount and reconcile
• findings_consolidation.findings_not_mapped > 0 without reasons → WARNING: Document reasons

Count Conservation Failure Handling:

IF conservation_sum != p5_total_threats:
  1. List all P5 threats: extract threat_inventory.threats[].id
  2. For each P5 threat, find its P6 disposition (verified/theoretical/pending/excluded)
  3. Identify missing threats (in P5 but not in P6 disposition)
  4. Add missing threats to appropriate category with explicit reason
  5. Re-verify conservation formula
  6. ONLY proceed if conservation_verified == true

Output Context

→ P7: validated_risks {risk_summary{}, risk_details[], poc_details[], attack_paths[], attack_chains[]}

Core Analysis Goal

Consolidate ALL findings from P1-P5, perform deep validation from attacker's perspective, design attack paths and POC code. This is NOT mitigation - focus on VALIDATING that risks are exploitable.

Knowledge Reference

Query Commands:

# Attack path analysis
$SKILL_PATH/kb --capec CAPEC-89 --attack-chain
$SKILL_PATH/kb --attack-technique T1078
$SKILL_PATH/kb --check-kev CVE-2024-XXXX

# Verification tests
$SKILL_PATH/kb --stride-tests S
$SKILL_PATH/kb --cwe-tests CWE-89
$SKILL_PATH/kb --wstg-category ATHN

KB Usage Logging (Recommended)

Record KB queries made during risk validation:

# In P6_validated_risks.yaml - RECOMMENDED section
kb_usage_log:
  attack_chain_queries:
    - capec: CAPEC-194
      query: "--capec CAPEC-194 --attack-chain"
      risks_informed: [VR-001]
    - capec: CAPEC-66
      query: "--capec CAPEC-66 --attack-chain"
      risks_informed: [VR-003]
  attack_technique_queries:
    - technique: T1078
      query: "--attack-technique T1078"
      attack_paths_informed: [AP-001]
  verification_queries:
    - category: WSTG-ATHN
      query: "--wstg-category ATHN"
      pocs_informed: [POC-001, POC-002]
    - cwe: CWE-89
      query: "--cwe-tests CWE-89"
      pocs_informed: [POC-003]
  coverage:
    risks_with_capec_reference: 10
    risks_with_attack_reference: 8
    pocs_with_wstg_reference: 5
    total_verified_risks: 15
    kb_coverage_percentage: 66.7

Validation Rule (WARNING only):

• kb_coverage_percentage < 40% triggers WARNING - consider querying attack techniques and WSTG

Consolidation Process

Step 1: Gather All Findings

Read ALL phase data files and extract findings:

# Required reads from phase data files
.phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P1_project_context.yaml    → architecture_findings
.phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P2_dfd_elements.yaml       → dataflow_findings
.phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P3_boundary_context.yaml   → boundary_findings
.phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P4_security_gaps.yaml      → security_gaps
.phase_working/{SESSION_ID}/data/P5_threat_inventory.yaml   → threat_inventory

Step 2: Cluster Related Findings

Group findings that relate to the same vulnerability:

clustering_rules:
  same_element: "Findings targeting same DFD element (P-xxx, DS-xxx, DF-xxx)"
  same_boundary: "Findings at same trust boundary crossing"
  data_flow_chain: "Findings along same data flow path"
  control_chain: "Findings in same security control chain"
  attack_path: "Findings that form attack path steps"

Step 3: Deduplicate and Merge

Similar threats targeting the same vulnerability should be merged into a single ValidatedRisk with multiple threat_refs and finding_refs.

# Example: Multiple findings merged into one VR
validated_risk:
  id: VR-001
  threat_refs: [T-S-P-001-001, T-E-P-001-002]  # From P5
  finding_refs: [F-P1-003, F-P2-007, GAP-002]  # From P1-P4

Step 4: Validate Each Risk

For each potential risk:

1. Assess exploitability: Can it actually be exploited?
2. Design attack path: What steps would an attacker take?
3. Create POC: How would exploitation work?
4. Determine status: verified/theoretical/pending/excluded

Step 5: Verify Count Conservation

P5.threat_inventory.total = verified + theoretical + pending + excluded

All findings (F-P1-xxx, F-P2-xxx, F-P3-xxx, GAP-xxx, T-xxx) must be:

• Referenced in at least one VR's threat_refs[] or finding_refs[], OR
• Marked as excluded with documented reason

Verification Status Types

Count Conservation Rule

P5.threat_inventory.total = verified + theoretical + pending + excluded

Every threat from P5 MUST be accounted for in P6:

• Either in a ValidatedRisk's threat_refs[]
• Or marked as excluded with documented reason

Output Structure (5 Parts)

Part 1: Risk Summary

risk_summary:
  total_identified: 85          # From P5
  total_verified: 12            # ✅ POC confirmed
  total_pending: 8              # ⚠️ Needs verification
  total_theoretical: 45         # 📋 Code analysis
  total_excluded: 20            # ❌ Not exploitable
  verification_rate: "76%"      # (verified+theoretical)/total
  risk_by_severity:
    critical: 5
    high: 12
    medium: 25
    low: 23
  risk_by_stride:
    S: 12
    T: 18
    R: 8
    I: 22
    D: 10
    E: 15

Part 2: POC Details

Every Critical/High threat MUST have a complete POC:

poc_details:
  - poc_id: POC-001
    threat_ref: T-S-P-001-001
    stride_type: S
    verification_status: verified
    exploitation_difficulty: medium
    prerequisites:
      - "Valid user session"
      - "Knowledge of target user ID"
    vulnerability_location:
      file_path: "src/api/auth.py"
      function_name: "verify_token"
      line_number: 45
    vulnerable_code: |
      def verify_token(token):
          # Missing signature verification
          return jwt.decode(token, options={"verify_signature": False})
    exploitation_steps:
      - "Obtain any valid JWT token"
      - "Modify payload to change user_id"
      - "Send modified token to API"
    poc_code: |
      import jwt
      import requests

      # 1. Get valid token
      original_token = "eyJ..."

      # 2. Decode without verification
      payload = jwt.decode(original_token, options={"verify_signature": False})

      # 3. Modify user_id
      payload["user_id"] = "admin"

      # 4. Re-encode (any key works)
      malicious_token = jwt.encode(payload, "any_key", algorithm="HS256")

      # 5. Use malicious token
      response = requests.get(
          "https://target.com/api/user/profile",
          headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {malicious_token}"}
      )
      print(response.json())
    expected_result: |
      {"status": "success", "user": {"id": "admin", "role": "administrator"}}
    actual_result: |
      Successfully retrieved admin profile
    risk_assessment:
      complexity: medium
      attack_vector: network
      impact_scope: user_data
      data_sensitivity: high

Part 3: Risk Details

risk_details:
  - risk_id: VR-001
    title: "JWT Signature Verification Bypass"
    threat_refs: [T-S-P-001-001, T-E-P-001-002]  # MANDATORY
    finding_refs: [GAP-001]
    stride_types: [S, E]
    priority: P0
    cvss_score: 9.8
    cvss_vector: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H"
    location:
      files: ["src/api/auth.py"]
      elements: [P-001]
      trust_boundary: TB-001
    detailed_analysis: |
      The application uses PyJWT to decode tokens but disables
      signature verification, allowing attackers to forge tokens.
    root_cause: |
      Developer explicitly disabled verification for "debugging"
      and forgot to re-enable it.
    related_cwe: CWE-287
    related_capec: CAPEC-194
    related_attack: T1078
    related_poc: POC-001
    validation:
      status: verified
      poc_available: true
      test_cases:
        - "WSTG-ATHN-04: JWT Token Forgery"

Part 4: Attack Path Matrix

attack_path_matrix:
  - path_id: AP-001
    path_name: "Auth Bypass → Admin Access"
    entry_point: "Public API"
    key_nodes: [P-001, P-002]
    final_target: "Admin Functions"
    feasibility_score: 9.2
    detection_difficulty: low
    priority_fix: true
    related_risks: [VR-001]

  - path_id: AP-002
    path_name: "SQL Injection → Data Exfiltration"
    entry_point: "Search API"
    key_nodes: [P-003, DS-001]
    final_target: "User Database"
    feasibility_score: 7.5
    detection_difficulty: medium
    priority_fix: true
    related_risks: [VR-003]

Part 5: Attack Chains

attack_chains:
  - chain_id: AC-001
    chain_name: "Privilege Escalation Chain"
    entry_point: "Public API"
    target: "Administrator Access"
    impact_scope: "Complete System Control"
    difficulty: medium
    related_threats: [T-S-P-001-001, T-E-P-001-002]
    steps:
      - step: 1
        title: "Initial Access"
        source: "Attacker"
        target: "API Gateway"
        action: "Obtain valid JWT token"
        code_location: "api/routes.py:120"
        data_change: "Acquire session token"
      - step: 2
        title: "Token Manipulation"
        source: "Attacker"
        target: "JWT Token"
        action: "Modify user_id in payload"
        code_location: "N/A (client-side)"
        data_change: "Forged admin identity"
      - step: 3
        title: "Privilege Escalation"
        source: "API Gateway"
        target: "Auth Service"
        action: "Submit forged token"
        code_location: "auth/verify.py:45"
        data_change: "Gain admin role"
    attack_flow_diagram: |
      ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
      │                 Attack Chain: Privilege Escalation               │
      ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
      │  Step 1: Initial Access                                          │
      │  ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
      │  │  Attacker ──→ API Gateway                                  │  │
      │  │  Action: Obtain valid JWT token                            │  │
      │  │  Location: api/routes.py:120                               │  │
      │  └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
      │                              │                                   │
      │                              ▼                                   │
      │  Step 2: Token Manipulation                                      │
      │  ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
      │  │  Attacker ──→ JWT Token                                    │  │
      │  │  Action: Modify user_id in payload                         │  │
      │  │  Location: Client-side manipulation                        │  │
      │  └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
      │                              │                                   │
      │                              ▼                                   │
      │  Step 3: Privilege Escalation                                    │
      │  ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
      │  │  API Gateway ──→ Auth Service                              │  │
      │  │  Action: Submit forged token, gain admin role              │  │
      │  │  Location: auth/verify.py:45                               │  │
      │  └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
      │                              │                                   │
      │                              ▼                                   │
      │  Result: Administrator access achieved                           │
      └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
    prerequisites:
      - "Network access to API"
      - "Ability to create user account"
    exploitation_commands: |
      # Step 1: Get valid token
      TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST https://target/api/login \
        -d '{"user":"test","pass":"test123"}' | jq -r '.token')

      # Step 2: Forge admin token
      ADMIN_TOKEN=$(python3 jwt_forge.py --token $TOKEN --user admin)

      # Step 3: Access admin functions
      curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $ADMIN_TOKEN" \
        https://target/api/admin/users
    ioc_indicators:
      - "JWT tokens with mismatched signature"
      - "Rapid role changes in same session"
    defense_recommendations:
      - cutpoint: "Step 2"
        recommendation: "Enable JWT signature verification"
      - cutpoint: "Step 3"
        recommendation: "Implement token binding to IP/device"

Report Template

# P6: Risk Validation

## Executive Summary

| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Total Threats (from P5) | N |
| Verified (✅) | N |
| Pending (⚠️) | N |
| Theoretical (📋) | N |
| Excluded (❌) | N |
| Verification Rate | N% |

## Count Conservation Check

- P5 Total: N
- P6 Total (V+Th+P+E): N
- Status: ✅ PASS / ❌ FAIL

## Critical Risks

### VR-001: JWT Signature Verification Bypass

[Full risk detail with POC]

## Attack Path Analysis

### AP-001: Auth Bypass → Admin Access

[Attack path with feasibility score]

## Attack Chains

### AC-001: Privilege Escalation Chain

[Full attack chain with ASCII diagram]

## Validated Risks Inventory

[yaml:validated_risks block]

SAST-Assisted Validation (Optional Enhancement)

Reference: @knowledge/sast-rules.yaml for tool configurations and STRIDE mappings.

When to Use SAST Tools

LLM Decision Matrix

1. Check if SAST tools available (from P1_static_discovery.yaml enhanced_tools)
2. Map threat type to relevant SAST rules (see stride_sast_mapping in sast-rules.yaml)
3. Execute targeted scan if applicable
4. Integrate findings into poc_details.tool_evidence

SAST Evidence Integration

poc_details:
  - poc_id: POC-001
    # ... other fields ...
    tool_evidence:
      tool: "semgrep"
      rule: "p/sql-injection"
      command_executed: "semgrep --config p/sql-injection --json {project_path}"
      findings:
        - file: "src/api/search.py"
          line: 45
          rule_id: "python.sqlalchemy.security.sqlalchemy-execute-raw-query"
          message: "Detected raw SQL query with user input"
      interpretation: "Confirms T-T-DS-001-001 is exploitable via SQL injection"

Attack Tree Generation (Optional Enhancement)

Design Principle: Use Prompt extension, NOT code templates. LLM generates attack trees using reasoning.

When to Generate Attack Trees

Generate attack trees when:

1. Multiple related risks form an attack chain
2. Complex privilege escalation paths identified
3. User explicitly requests attack tree visualization
4. Critical risks require comprehensive attack path documentation

Attack Tree Mermaid Output Format

graph TD
    %% Attack Tree: [Goal Description]
    %% Generated from: VR-xxx, T-xxx threat analysis

    ROOT["🎯 GOAL: Obtain Admin Access"]

    %% OR nodes: Any child success achieves parent goal
    ROOT --> OR1["OR: Authentication Bypass"]
    ROOT --> OR2["OR: Privilege Escalation"]

    %% AND nodes: All children required for parent goal
    OR1 --> AND1["AND: Token Forgery Chain"]

    %% LEAF nodes: Concrete attack steps
    AND1 --> LEAF1["LEAF: Obtain valid JWT<br/>Cost: Low | Prob: 0.9"]
    AND1 --> LEAF2["LEAF: Modify payload<br/>Cost: Low | Prob: 0.8"]
    AND1 --> LEAF3["LEAF: Bypass signature check<br/>Cost: Low | Prob: 0.7<br/>Ref: T-S-P-001-001"]

    OR2 --> LEAF4["LEAF: IDOR on /api/users/{id}<br/>Cost: Low | Prob: 0.6<br/>Ref: T-E-P-002-001"]
    OR2 --> LEAF5["LEAF: SQL injection escalation<br/>Cost: Medium | Prob: 0.5<br/>Ref: T-T-DS-001-001"]

    %% Styling
    style ROOT fill:#ff6b6b,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style OR1 fill:#ffd93d,stroke:#333
    style OR2 fill:#ffd93d,stroke:#333
    style AND1 fill:#ff9f43,stroke:#333
    style LEAF1 fill:#51cf66,stroke:#333
    style LEAF2 fill:#51cf66,stroke:#333
    style LEAF3 fill:#51cf66,stroke:#333
    style LEAF4 fill:#51cf66,stroke:#333
    style LEAF5 fill:#51cf66,stroke:#333

Attack Tree Node Types

LEAF Node Format

Each LEAF node should include:

• Attack step description
• Cost: Low/Medium/High
• Probability: 0.0-1.0
• Ref: Related threat ID (T-xxx or VR-xxx)

Attack Tree YAML Schema

attack_trees:
  - tree_id: AT-001
    goal: "Obtain Administrator Access"
    related_risks: [VR-001, VR-003]
    related_threats: [T-S-P-001-001, T-E-P-002-001, T-T-DS-001-001]
    total_paths: 3
    highest_probability_path: 0.504  # 0.9 * 0.8 * 0.7
    nodes:
      - id: ROOT
        type: goal
        description: "Obtain Admin Access"
        children: [OR1, OR2]
      - id: OR1
        type: or
        description: "Authentication Bypass"
        children: [AND1]
      - id: AND1
        type: and
        description: "Token Forgery Chain"
        children: [LEAF1, LEAF2, LEAF3]
      - id: LEAF1
        type: leaf
        description: "Obtain valid JWT"
        cost: low
        probability: 0.9
        threat_ref: null
      # ... more nodes
    mermaid_diagram: |
      [Full Mermaid code block]
    attack_paths:
      - path_id: "ROOT→OR1→AND1→[LEAF1,LEAF2,LEAF3]"
        combined_probability: 0.504
        total_cost: low
        cutpoint_recommendation: "LEAF3 - Enable JWT signature verification"

Integration with Report

Include attack trees in P6 report:

## Attack Tree Analysis

### AT-001: Obtain Administrator Access

**Goal**: Gain full administrative control over the application

**Attack Paths Identified**: 3
**Highest Probability Path**: 50.4% (Token Forgery Chain)

[Mermaid diagram here]

**Recommended Cutpoints**:
1. LEAF3 (Bypass signature check) - Enable JWT signature verification
2. LEAF4 (IDOR) - Implement proper authorization checks

Findings Coverage Verification (CRITICAL)

P6 MUST verify complete coverage of ALL P1-P5 findings:

# In P6_validated_risks.yaml - REQUIRED section
findings_coverage_verification:
  # Input References
  input_refs:
    p1_file: "P1_project_context.yaml"
    p2_file: "P2_dfd_elements.yaml"
    p3_file: "P3_boundary_context.yaml"
    p4_file: "P4_security_gaps.yaml"
    p5_file: "P5_threat_inventory.yaml"

  # P1 Architecture Findings Coverage
  p1_findings:
    total_findings: 0              # Count of F-P1-xxx from P1 (if any)
    findings_in_vr_refs: 0         # Referenced in some VR.finding_refs
    findings_excluded: 0           # In excluded_findings with reason
    coverage_percentage: 100       # (in_refs + excluded) / total
    uncovered_findings: []         # MUST be empty

  # P2 Data Flow Findings Coverage
  p2_findings:
    total_findings: 0              # Count of F-P2-xxx from P2 (if any)
    findings_in_vr_refs: 0
    findings_excluded: 0
    coverage_percentage: 100
    uncovered_findings: []

  # P3 Boundary Findings Coverage
  p3_findings:
    total_findings: 0              # Count of F-P3-xxx from P3 (if any)
    findings_in_vr_refs: 0
    findings_excluded: 0
    coverage_percentage: 100
    uncovered_findings: []

  # P4 Security Gaps Coverage
  p4_gaps:
    total_gaps: 12                 # Count of GAP-xxx from P4
    gaps_in_vr_refs: 10            # Referenced in some VR.finding_refs
    gaps_excluded: 2               # In excluded_findings with reason
    coverage_percentage: 100       # MUST be 100%
    uncovered_gaps: []             # MUST be empty

  # P5 Threats Coverage (existing count conservation)
  p5_threats:
    total_threats: 45              # From P5.threat_inventory.summary.total
    threats_in_vr_refs: 40         # Referenced in some VR.threat_refs
    threats_excluded: 5            # In excluded_findings with reason
    coverage_percentage: 100       # MUST be 100%
    uncovered_threats: []          # MUST be empty
    # Count Conservation Check
    verified_count: 15
    theoretical_count: 20
    pending_count: 5
    excluded_count: 5
    conservation_check: true       # verified + theoretical + pending + excluded == total

  # Overall Coverage
  overall:
    total_findings: 57             # Sum of all finding types
    findings_covered: 57           # In VR refs or excluded
    coverage_percentage: 100       # MUST be 100%
    conservation_verified: true    # P5 count conservation passed

  # Excluded Findings Documentation
  excluded_findings:
    - id: GAP-011
      source_phase: P4
      exclusion_reason: "Already mitigated in production"
      evidence: "Verified in code review 2026-01-15"
    - id: T-S-P-005-001
      source_phase: P5
      exclusion_reason: "False positive - auth check exists at caller"
      evidence: "See src/middleware/auth.py:45"

Validation Rules:

• Every F-P1-xxx finding must be in some VR's finding_refs[] OR in excluded_findings[]
• Every F-P2-xxx finding must be in some VR's finding_refs[] OR in excluded_findings[]
• Every F-P3-xxx finding must be in some VR's finding_refs[] OR in excluded_findings[]
• Every GAP-xxx must be in some VR's finding_refs[] OR in excluded_findings[]
• Every T-xxx must be in some VR's threat_refs[] OR in excluded_findings[]
• Count Conservation: P5.total == verified + theoretical + pending + excluded

BLOCKING: coverage_percentage < 100% for any phase's findings BLOCKING: conservation_verified == false

POC to TestCase Mapping (P6→P8 Bridge)

P6 generates POCs; P8 requires TestCases. This mapping ensures test coverage:

# In P6_validated_risks.yaml - REQUIRED section
poc_to_testcase_mapping:
  description: "Mapping from POC-xxx to TC-xxx for P8 test case generation"

  mappings:
    - poc_id: POC-001
      poc_title: "JWT Token Forgery"
      suggested_tc_type: manual_pentest
      suggested_tc_priority: critical
      tc_prerequisites:
        - "Access to valid user JWT"
        - "Burp Suite or jwt_tool"
      tc_verification: "Admin access obtained without valid credentials"

    - poc_id: POC-002
      poc_title: "SQL Injection in Search"
      suggested_tc_type: automated_scan
      suggested_tc_priority: high
      tc_prerequisites:
        - "sqlmap installed"
        - "Access to search endpoint"
      tc_verification: "Database data exfiltrated via error-based SQLi"

  coverage_summary:
    total_pocs: 0
    pocs_with_tc_mapping: 0
    coverage_percentage: 100    # pocs_with_tc_mapping / total_pocs * 100

P8 Consumption: P8 reads poc_to_testcase_mapping and generates TC-xxx entities with poc_ref field populated.

Validation Gates

Completion Checklist

Before marking Phase 6 complete:

Findings Coverage Verification:

• findings_coverage_verification section present in YAML
• P1-P3 findings coverage verified (if any findings exist)
• P4 gaps coverage_percentage == 100%
• P5 threats coverage_percentage == 100%
• All excluded_findings have documented reasons and evidence
• conservation_verified == true (P5 count conservation)

Risk Validation:

• All P5 threats accounted for
• Count conservation verified
• yaml:validated_risks present
• yaml:poc_details for Critical/High
• yaml:attack_chains present
• ASCII attack flow diagrams included
• Validation passed

Optional Enhancements:

• Attack trees for complex risk clusters
• SAST tool evidence for applicable threats

End of Phase 6 Instructions (~550 lines, ~4.5K tokens)