Kaaffilm Recovery

4 canonical evidence refs

Kaaffilm Recovery is a bounded recovery, rebuild, migration, and infrastructure case for the Kaaffilm International Short Film Festival. It preserves the distinction between historical material that may remain valuable and a legacy runtime that is not automatically treated as trusted production state.

DECISION MAP

The sequence, made visible.

01 / Context

The situation

02 / Problem

What had to change

The problem was not reduced to reproducing an old site. The recovery narrative had to preserve useful historical material without treating preservation, a live host, or a successful deployment as proof that the historical WordPress or PHP runtime was trusted, completely secure, or forensically closed.

03 / Decision

The governing choice

The case is deliberately framed as recovery, rebuild, migration, and infrastructure work rather than formal forensic incident response. That boundary remains part of the case, not a footnote removed for marketing.

04 / Architecture

How the work was structured

The architecture narrative is limited to the admitted recovery and rebuild claim set attached to the canonical case object. It preserves the separation between retained historical material and trusted runtime state, and it does not convert deployment evidence into a security guarantee.

05 / Implementation

What changed

The admitted implementation record supports a bounded Recovery Implementation Author role and the canonical build/change references attached to this case. Public copy may describe only changes supported by those governed references.

06 / BOUNDED RESULT

What the record supports.

The admitted result surface is bounded to technical or artifact state and derived canonical or public-surface observations. No revenue, conversion, traffic, uptime, SEO, customer-growth, or other business-impact metric is admitted.

What it demonstrates.

RECOVER means preserving what has evidentiary or historical value while separating it from trusted runtime state, then describing the rebuild without upgrading technical evidence into security or business guarantees.

Discuss related work

Inspect case proof & boundaries

Evidence reading

This case is bound to 48 bounded fact references, 7 bounded result references, 4 canonical evidence identifiers, and the admitted external implementation evidence attached to the role-resolution record. Those references bound what this case may say; they do not create business-impact claims.

Role boundary

My admitted bounded case-execution role is Recovery Implementation Author. The role is derived from attributed implementation evidence and does not establish founder, owner, architect, lead, sole-author, or current-maintainer status.

Evidence references

evidence:cinema-profile-behance-kiasat
evidence:cinema-profile-coroflot-kiasat
evidence:cinema-profile-midiakiasat-homepage
evidence:kaaffilm-primary-festival-identity

Boundaries

The case is presented as recovery, rebuild, migration, and infrastructure work; it is not presented as formal forensic incident response.
No revenue, conversion, traffic, uptime, SEO, customer-growth, or other business-impact metric is claimed without explicit measurement evidence.
Preservation or recovery of historical material does not make the historical WordPress or PHP runtime trusted.
A live host or successful deployment does not by itself prove complete security or forensic closure.
formal forensic incident response performed
all compromise vectors conclusively identified
guaranteed secure
measured business improvement without evidence
measured business outcome without explicit outcome evidence
case-execution role while canonical role evidence remains unresolved