A practical guide to current in-app approval audit history in TEMIRIN using configured records, explicit market identity, current controls, and human review.
August 3, 2026 · 6 min read
A TEMIRIN approval trail begins when an authorized workspace member records approve or reject against a reviewable opportunity. The event should preserve the workspace, opportunity identifier, actor, action, time, and the market context used by the decision endpoint. This record documents a research decision inside the product. It is not proof of a Polymarket transaction, wallet movement, or an instruction delivered to the venue, so those concepts should never be collapsed into the approval status.
Before deciding, the reviewer should reopen the exact market question, outcome side, closing condition, resolution source, linked evidence, trigger price, and current price timestamp. The opportunity comes from a configured watchlist market, and evidence is present only through a supported explicit market identifier. The review remains bounded to stored context. An approve event records the reviewer’s disposition under that context; it does not certify the evidence or promise a financial outcome.
Use reject reasons and blocked states as first-class history. A rejection can capture unclear resolution wording, weak provenance, unacceptable current conditions, policy restrictions, or a human decision to take no further step. The audit trail becomes more useful when it preserves these cases rather than showcasing approvals alone. Another authorized teammate should be able to see which record was considered, what action occurred, and which facts remained uncertain at the time.
Each linked evidence item should expose publisher or provider, canonical URL or reference, observed time, supplied publication or event time when available, and safe processing state. Configured RSS and web readers support canonicalization and content deduplication, while provider-configured Telegram and X readers preserve their source references. A repeated item is not independent confirmation, and successful collection does not prove the claim. The reviewer remains responsible for opening and interpreting the original material.
A deterministic brief can arrange stored evidence fields for inspection. Human notes should explain the exact claim considered, attribution chain, preliminary or corrected status, and relevance to the contract. If the evidence changes later, append the new record and a later note rather than editing the earlier decision to match. This chronology lets the team evaluate how it handled information as it existed, avoiding a polished history constructed after the market outcome became known.
When evidence is missing an explicit market identifier, leave it in source context. Do not attach it during an audit merely because the text now appears relevant. The audit question is what the workspace presented to the reviewer at decision time. Coverage gaps can become a prospective configuration improvement, but they should not be inserted into the old approval packet. This boundary protects both provenance and the reviewer from hindsight.
The opportunity retains its first-recorded trigger price, while a later synchronization supplies current price with a separate observation time. The authenticated decision endpoint applies the configured price-move guard to current context. If the change exceeds the boundary, the action can be blocked and returned for renewed review. Preserve the blocked attempt, comparison values, and reason. Do not overwrite the trigger or silently convert the earlier context into the new value.
Current policy can also show a stake cap, source and category enabled or blocked states, source or category maximum-stake overrides, free-capital percentage, and kill switch. Display the applicable state and stored reason. These settings constrain review and paper records; they do not choose a position for the user. An approval audit should say which policy context was visible, not imply that a pass establishes suitability, available liquidity, or permission to use capital.
Public bid, ask, spread, and visible depth may add market context when available. A midpoint is not necessarily tradable, and displayed quantity can change. If a reviewer mentions these observations, preserve the field names and timestamps in the note. They help explain why current conditions differed from the trigger, but they do not reconstruct an outside fill. Real venue activity remains distinct from every approval event in TEMIRIN.
Configured email, Telegram, Slack, and outbound webhook destinations can receive review alerts. Each attempt belongs to a delivery ledger with success or failure state and manual retry. Delivery shows whether the destination accepted transport; it does not show that a teammate read the message and cannot change approve or reject status. During an incident, first confirm that the in-app opportunity exists, then inspect each external attempt without using channel state as a decision shortcut.
Alert payloads should include only safe context and a protected workspace link. A signed-out reader must not gain access to the underlying evidence or decision record. Repeated retries remain attempts for the same alert event and should not create multiple approvals. This identity separation lets operators repair transport while auditors retain one authoritative in-app action history. It also makes it possible to report alert reliability without turning message counts into research outcomes.
After review, a user may separately enter a paper order with market identity, outcome side, price, and notional. The server checks per-order notional, rolling twenty-four-hour notional, per-market exposure, and portfolio concentration before storing the simulation. A pass or block belongs to the paper ledger, not the approval record. Approval does not create the paper order, and the entered paper amount remains the user’s choice rather than a value derived from approval.
Later paper mark-to-market can be compared with its entry and with the opportunity trigger reference when labels and timestamps remain clear. Do not blend that simulation with read-only public-wallet positions or claim a venue fill. If a paper check blocks the record, preserve the reasons for later analysis. These distinctions let the team study its review and simulation discipline while maintaining that all actual capital activity takes place outside the workspace.
Select a sample containing approvals, rejections, price-move blocks, alert failures, paper passes, paper blocks, and no-paper decisions. Starting from each opportunity ID, trace watchlist identity, explicit evidence, trigger and current prices, policy state, delivery attempts, decision actor, and any paper record. Missing data should be reported as missing. A reproducible sample is more valuable than a broad total that cannot be tied back to the records reviewed.
Use journal notes, analytics, and export to examine process consistency while preserving record types and timestamps. Corrections should be appended prospectively, and original actions should remain attributable. Reviewers can improve checklists, source ownership, access, and alert operations based on findings. TEMIRIN supplies the audit chain; the team remains responsible for evidence verification, decision quality, paper assumptions, capital, and every external transaction.
Schedule the audit around a defined workspace and date range, then save those boundaries with the result. If another reviewer cannot reproduce the counts, inspect late evidence, changed prices, policy updates, and additional delivery attempts before revising the summary. Reconciliation should explain record changes rather than erase them, preserving confidence that the audit reflects the selected point in time.
It proves that an authorized workspace member recorded approve or reject for a specific opportunity at a specific time. It does not prove a venue transaction.
The configured price-move guard can block the authenticated action and return the record for renewed human inspection using current context.
No. External destinations receive review context. Approve or reject remains an authenticated in-app event.
No. A user enters a paper order separately, and its current notional, exposure, and concentration checks belong to the paper ledger.
Store it as a new attributable evidence record and append a journal note without rewriting the earlier decision.
