fix: Correct all 4 Tier 1 critical security & infrastructure gaps

.claude/decisions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+# Decision Log
+
+Audit trail of all major decisions in TokenVotingUtil collaboration. This file is **local** (not in GitHub) and tracks thinking for future reference.
+
+---
+
+## 2026-02-25: Reset ADN — Establish Healthy Collaboration Framework
+
+### Question
+How do we structure long-term collaboration with sollama58 (volunteer maintainer) in a way that scales and doesn't require constant re-alignment?
+
+### Options Considered
+
+**Option A: Prescriptive** (Bad)
+- We code fixes locally
+- Push PRs with changes already made
+- Wait for feedback / approval
+- Con: Surprises sollama58, doesn't respect his bandwidth
+
+**Option B: Collaborative with Governance** (Chosen)
+- We propose ideas in Issues first
+- sollama58 provides feedback (async)
+- We code based on his decision
+- Decisions documented for future reference
+- Pro: Transparent, respectful, scalable
+
+**Option C: No Structure** (Worst)
+- Ad-hoc communication
+- Decisions scattered in Slack/Discord
+- Hard to track what was decided and why
+- Con: Knowledge loss, repeating conversations
+
+### Decision
+**Chosen: Option B** (Collaborative with Governance)
+
+### Implementation
+1. Create governance documents:
+   - `COLLABORATION.md` — How we work together
+   - `ARCHITECTURE.md` — Technical overview + known issues
+   - `ROADMAP.md` — Phases 1-3 with decision points
+   - `.claude/decisions.md` — This file (local audit trail)
+
+2. Structure Phase 1 as two étapes:
+   - Étape 1: Infrastructure hardening (ready to merge now)
+   - Étape 2: Voting logic (blocked on decision)
+
+3. Open GitHub Issue #1:
+   - Propose Phase 1 roadmap
+   - Ask sollama58 for feedback on Phase 1 Étape 2 (3 paths: A/B/C)
+   - Get explicit decision before coding
+
+4. Open GitHub PR #1:
+   - Tier 1 gaps (CORS, tests, logging, Redis)
+   - Reference Issue #1
+   - Link to DEPLOYMENT.md and ARCHITECTURE.md
+
+### Rationale
+- **Transparent**: All plans visible to sollama58 before we code
+- **Respectful**: Doesn't force decisions on him
+- **Scalable**: Structure repeats for Phase 2, 3, etc.
+- **Documented**: Future collaborators understand the why
+- **Async-friendly**: Works with volunteer's sporadic availability
+
+### Blocked By
+Nothing. This is foundational.
+
+### Outcome
+- 4 governance docs created (COLLABORATION, ARCHITECTURE, ROADMAP, this file)
+- Clear decision framework for Phase 1 Étape 2
+- GitHub Issue #1 ready to open (waits for user approval)
+- GitHub PR #1 structured properly (references Issue #1, DEPLOYMENT, ARCHITECTURE)
+
+### Next Decision Needed
+sollama58's response to Issue #1:
+- Approve Phase 1 Étape 1 for merge?
+- Which path for Phase 1 Étape 2? (A: quick fixes, B: full backend, C: defer)
+- Timeline preferences?
+
+---
+
+## 2026-02-24: Infrastructure Fixes (Phase 1 Étape 1)
+
+### Question
+What are the critical infrastructure gaps in TokenVotingUtil that block production deployment?
+
+### Decision
+Identified 4 Tier 1 gaps:
+1. CORS vulnerability (open to any origin)
+2. Zero test suite
+3. No structured logging
+4. In-memory rate limiting (doesn't survive restart)
+
+### Implementation
+5 atomic commits on `dev/gaps-tier1`:
+1. `8cd5f42` — CORS allowlist + CSP hardening
+2. `3f25631` — Jest test suite (20 tests)
+3. `adc70af` — Winston structured logging
+4. `79da4da` — Redis-backed rate limiter
+5. `6b0cba5` — Documentation + integration tests
+
+### Testing
+- All 34 tests pass (unit + integration)
+- Manual verification of each fix
+- Code coverage: 9.82% (API surface)
+
+### Outcome
+Phase 1 Étape 1 ready for sollama58 review and merge.
+
+---
+
+## 2026-02-24: Voting Logic Audit
+
+### Question
+Are there bugs in the voting logic that would break governance?
+
+### Findings
+Identified 6 issues:
+
+**Critical**:
+1. Margin >= threshold (should be >)
+2. Frontend tally authority (no server verification)
+
+**Medium**:
+3. No tie detection
+4. Voting power TOCTOU risk
+5. Vote recalculation not enforced
+
+**Low**:
+6. Zero pool edge case (handled, but untested)
+
+### Decision
+3 critical/medium issues warrant Phase 1 Étape 2 work:
+1. Fix margin bug (30 min, low risk)
+2. Add tie detection (30 min, low risk)
+3. Backend tally authority (architectural, needs sollama58 input)
+
+### Blocked By
+sollama58's decision on Path A/B/C (see ROADMAP.md)
+
+---
+
+## Future Decisions Needed
+
+### 2026-02-25 (Pending)
+**Issue #1: Phase 1 Roadmap**
+- Q: Which path for voting fixes? (A: quick, B: full backend, C: defer)
+- Q: Timeline for Phase 1 Étape 1 merge?
+- Q: Timeline for Phase 1 Étape 2?
+- Q: Any other Phase 1 priorities?
+
+### 2026-03-XX (Estimated, pending Phase 1)
+**Phase 1 Complete**
+- Decide on Phase 2 timeline
+- Assess multi-tenant needs
+- Plan scaling strategy
+
+### 2026-04-XX (Estimated, pending Phase 2)
+**Phase 2 Complete**
+- Decide if Phase 3 (advanced features) needed
+- Assess governance launch readiness
+- Plan community outreach
+
+---
+
+## Decision Tracking Format
+
+When a new decision is needed:
+1. Open GitHub Issue with clear question
+2. Document options (with pros/cons)
+3. Ask for explicit decision
+4. Update this file when sollama58 responds
+5. Reference decision in code comments / commits
+
+---
+
+## Notes on Collaboration Style
+
+**Lessons Learned** (from this reset):
+- Don't code solutions before asking questions
+- Don't assume what the maintainer wants
+- Don't hide decisions in commit messages
+- Don't open PRs without context (link to issue)
+- Don't skip documentation
+
+**This Prevents**:
+- "Why did you do this?" conversations
+- Re-doing work because we misunderstood
+- Losing context when decisions are made
+- Knowledge silos (one person knows why)
+
+**This Enables**:
+- Scaling collaboration (works with any maintainer)
+- Async work (no real-time sync needed)
+- Long-term sustainability (future contributors understand)
+- Trust building (transparent process)
+
+---
+
+## Review & Refinement
+
+This document is **living**. Update it as:
+- New decisions are made
+- Outcomes are known
+- Process is refined based on sollama58's feedback
+
+**Questions about this workflow?** Open an issue or ask sollama58 for feedback.

.env.example

@@ -6,3 +6,6 @@ TOKEN_DECIMALS=6
 DATABASE_URL=postgresql://user:password@localhost:5432/lockverifier
 ADMIN_PASSWORD=change-me-to-a-strong-password
 SITE_TITLE=ASDelegate
+ALLOWED_ORIGINS=http://localhost:3000,http://localhost:5173
+LOG_LEVEL=info
+REDIS_URL=redis://localhost:6379