The marketing video promises properties the code lacks
The remotion/ folder is a five-scene product explainer. Scene4Security.tsx makes three
security promises, in Portuguese, as finished product claims:
| Claim (Scene 4) | Reality in the PoC |
|---|---|
| "Encriptação ponta-a-ponta" (end-to-end encryption) | There is a user_encryption_keys table (public/encrypted-private keypair) but nothing uses it. Evidence and documents are stored as plaintext files in the case-attachments bucket, which has no tenant path isolation — any authenticated user can read any case's files. E2E is aspirational scaffolding, not a feature. |
| "Controlo de acessos por papel" (role-based access control) | RLS does not enforce the role model; role is global-max, not tenant-scoped; a user can self-provision as super_admin. |
| "Audit trail completo" (complete audit trail) | The audit log is client-authored, best-effort, conditional, and truncated at 200. |
Scene3Workflow.tsx also names the eight phases (Abertura → Relatório & Decisão), which is
a useful confirmation of the intended canonical workflow.
Why this belongs in the tacit-assumptions register: the team believes — and sells — these properties as true. That belief is itself a hazard: a rebuild scoped from the pitch will assume encryption, RBAC, and a court-grade audit log already exist, when each is either absent or actively broken. The gap between the pitch and the code is the spec that's missing.
Rebuild implication
Treat the three Scene-4 claims as requirements to actually build, and reconcile the pitch with the security findings before it reaches customers.