Resolve who a register row is talking about

The door, and the one rule that is about the round rather than about the directory: on a verdict that did not resolve, the round erases the username it wrote itself and keeps the one it did not.

Usage

resolve_identity(request, directory, domain = "ubep.unipd.it")

Arguments

request

One register row as a named list, carrying first_name, last_name, contact_email, username and identity. The last is the previous verdict, and it is the only memory created needs: a row that was absent and now matches is one whose account came into being because of this request. The memory lives in the register, which is where this project keeps memory. It also says what username is: a claim by whoever filed the row while the verdict is empty, and this round's own earlier answer once one sits beside it, because the two are never written apart.

directory

A directory frame as directory_users() returns.

domain

The tenant's verified domain, defaulting as compose_upn() does, so that what counts as an internal address and what a composed UPN looks like cannot drift apart.

Value

A list with identity, username, errors and composed.

Details

It is the writing half of the rule 51602c1 installed for reading, and it hangs on the same discriminator, the previous verdict. Read in both directions it is a single sentence: an empty identity means the username beside it belongs to whoever filed the row, and a filled one means it belongs to the round.

Why the round must not empty a declaration. Measured on rows 2 to 4 of the live register on 2026-08-16. Emptying it, the next round reads the blank as a field the referent left empty – a row an error stops carries an empty identity by construction, so the rule of 51602c1 never speaks – and decision 12 takes its other branch, fills the username from the internal contact and finds the account's surname is another person's. Two different diagnoses reach the referent for a row they never touched, and the field they are being asked to correct has been blanked, so the mistake is no longer in front of them.

Why it must still empty its own. A row that was existing carries the canonical UPN, which is in the tenant's domain, beside a contact address which ordinarily is not. Kept past the verdict that backed it, that value would be read as a declaration on the next pass and closed as DATO_RECAPITO_INTERNO_DIVERGENTE – the referent blamed for a word the round wrote, which is the oscillation of 51602c1 again with the sides swapped. Both branches settle in one step.