on-notice 0.1.0__tar.gz

on_notice-0.1.0/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 Waiga Arya
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

on_notice-0.1.0/PKG-INFO

@@ -0,0 +1,245 @@
+Metadata-Version: 2.4
+Name: on-notice
+Version: 0.1.0
+Summary: Which cosmetic ingredients have an EU deadline that has not arrived yet
+Author: Waiga Arya
+License: MIT
+Keywords: cosmetics,regulation,eu,inci,eur-lex
+Classifier: Development Status :: 3 - Alpha
+Classifier: Environment :: Console
+Classifier: Intended Audience :: Manufacturing
+Classifier: License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.9
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.10
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.11
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.12
+Classifier: Programming Language :: Python :: 3.13
+Classifier: Topic :: Utilities
+Requires-Python: >=3.9
+Description-Content-Type: text/markdown
+License-File: LICENSE
+Dynamic: license-file
+
+# On Notice
+
+Reads a cosmetic ingredient list and reports which ingredients on it are named in
+an EU rule that carries a date still ahead of it, and what that date is.
+
+It does not say whether a product may be sold. It reports dates.
+
+## Why this one exists
+
+The other tools in this set check what is wrong with a document today. A cosmetic
+reformulation takes the better part of a year, so the question that actually costs
+money is the other one: what becomes wrong while the stock is still on the shelf.
+
+Regulation (EU) 2026/909 was adopted on 27 April 2026. It restricts Benzyl
+Salicylate in fragrance products to 4 per cent, with lower limits in eight other
+product types, and the date it bites is 1 January 2027. A product on a shelf
+today can be entirely lawful and already be on a clock, and nothing on the pack
+says so.
+
+## Use
+
+```bash
+on-notice ingredients.txt
+on-notice --unresolved          # everything the register could not settle
+cat list.txt | on-notice -
+```
+
+Exit code is 1 when something on the list has a date, 0 when nothing does, 2 when
+the register cannot be read.
+
+```
+on-notice 0.1.0   register built 2026-09-18
+read 5 ingredient(s) from night-cream.txt
+
+2 of them are named in an EU rule with a date still ahead of it.
+
+1 January 2027   products that do not meet the new restriction cannot be placed on the Union market
+    Benzyl Salicylate
+      on the label as   Benzyl Salicylate
+      named in          Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/909, Annex III entry 75
+      the rule says     From 1 January 2027 cosmetic products containing these substances and not complying with the restrictions shall not be placed on the Union market.
+```
+
+The register ships inside the package. Nothing leaves your machine.
+
+## What it was measured against
+
+The corpus is the Open Beauty Facts CSV export, `en.openbeautyfacts.org.products.csv.gz`,
+the copy generated on 18 September 2026 at 00:22 GMT, 64,237 product rows.
+`scripts/measure_corpus.py` reproduces every number below from it. 17,626 of those
+rows carry an ingredient list. 31 of those lists yielded no readable ingredient
+names at all, leaving **17,595 lists read**, median 17 ingredients each. Nothing
+in it was written by this tool or by anybody connected to it.
+
+**3,050 of the 17,595, or 17.3 per cent, name at least one substance carrying a
+date that has not arrived.** 2,703 name one such substance, 334 name two, 13 name
+three.
+
+Counted by the number of lists naming each:
+
+| Substance | Lists | Date | What the date is |
+|---|---:|---|---|
+| Benzyl Salicylate | 1,614 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Citral | 1,416 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate | 190 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Pinene | 77 | 1 August 2028 | already in force, sell-through ends |
+| Methyl Salicylate | 56 | 1 August 2028 | already in force, sell-through ends |
+| Retinol | 47 | 1 May 2027 | already in force, sell-through ends |
+| Zinc Acetate | 4 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Triphenyl Phosphate | 3 | 1 January 2027 | prohibition starts |
+| Geranial | 3 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+
+Nine of the register's fourteen substances were seen at least once. The other five
+appear in no list it read, which is a fact about this corpus and not evidence that
+nothing uses them.
+
+**The corpus is not a sample of the EU market.** Open Beauty Facts is a global,
+volunteer-contributed database with a heavy western European skew. It is what was
+available and reproducible, not a representative frame, and the percentage above
+should be read as a property of that corpus rather than of the market the rules
+govern.
+
+## The first number this tool produced was wrong three times, each time in its own favour
+
+The first complete run reported **44.0 per cent**. Then **18.6 per cent**. The
+number that survived scrutiny is **17.3 per cent**. Every correction moved it
+down, which is to say every error made the tool look more impressive than it was.
+
+**First error: it counted compliance as exposure.** Around fifty of the substances
+in the first register came from Regulation (EU) 2023/1545, titled "as regards
+labelling of fragrance allergens". Quoted from Annex III as it amends it:
+
+> The presence of the substance shall be indicated in the list of ingredients
+> referred to in Article 19(1), point (g), when its concentration exceeds:
+> 0,001 % in leave-on products, 0,01 % in rinse-off products.
+
+The duty is to **name the substance in the list of ingredients**. So when a tool
+that reads printed ingredient names found Limonene on 5,301 labels, it had found
+5,301 products doing the thing the rule asks for. The products actually at risk
+print only `parfum` and never name the allergen, and no check that reads printed
+names can see a single one of them. The finding pointed the opposite way from
+what a reader would have assumed.
+
+**Second error, fixing the first: it threw away a real restriction.** Annex III
+entry 75 as replaced by Regulation 2026/909 carries **both** a 4 per cent maximum
+in fragrance products and the labelling sentence. A first fix matched the
+labelling phrase and filed the whole entry as a labelling duty, discarding a real
+restriction on 1,614 products. Same error, sign reversed.
+
+**Third error: the fix had a hole big enough for ten entries.** The strip matched
+only "The presence of **the substance** shall be indicated". Many entries read
+"The presence of the substance **or substances** shall be indicated **as
+'Eucalyptus Globulus Oil'**". Those were never stripped, so the 0,001 per cent
+labelling threshold inside the sentence was read as a concentration limit and ten
+labelling-only entries shipped as findings. One of them, Eucalyptus Globulus Leaf
+Oil at 94 lists, was the fourth row of an earlier draft of the table above.
+
+Entries are now classified from their own text, three ways rather than two. The
+labelling sentence is removed; a maximum concentration or permitted product type
+surviving that removal makes it a restriction on use. An entry in Annex II is a
+prohibition and needs no conditions column. An entry whose restriction text was
+never recovered is reported as neither, because promoting it invents a finding
+and dropping it hides a date.
+
+A separate defect from the same audit: the chemical name
+`1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one (16)` had its trailing
+bracket split off as a synonym, producing a matchable substance named `16`. Any
+label carrying a bare 16 would have matched it.
+
+## What it cannot tell you
+
+**It cannot tell you whether your product complies.** Every restriction here
+catches products that do not meet a new condition, and those conditions are
+concentrations and product types. A printed ingredient list states no
+concentrations. The tool can tell you a date applies to an ingredient you use. It
+cannot tell you which side of it you are on. The rule text is printed with every
+finding so you can check it yourself.
+
+**Some conditions are not formulation choices at all.** The 1 January 2027
+condition on Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate is a limit of 10 ppm on a
+trace impurity in the filter you buy. Several entries turn on a peroxide value.
+Those are answered by a supplier certificate, not by a recipe.
+
+**Some of these rules are already in force.** Regulation 2023/1545's placing limb
+passed on 31 July 2026 and Regulation 2024/996's on 1 November 2025. What remains
+is the sell-through window. Seven of the 21 shipped entries are in that state and
+are labelled as such on every run, because calling a rule already in force "not
+yet applying" is simply false.
+
+**It cannot see the products at risk under a labelling rule.** 50 substances carry
+a dated duty to be named on the pack above a threshold. A list naming one is
+meeting that duty. The list that omits it is the one at risk and is invisible
+here. These are reported separately on every run and never counted.
+
+**The percentage understates in one direction as well as overstating in the
+other.** Annex III entry 379 as inserted by Regulation 2026/909 covers
+"Aluminium-containing ingredients with the exception of those listed in entries
+34, 50, 189, 190 and 192 of Annex III...", with the same 1 January 2027 date.
+There is no honest way to match a class with an exception list against a printed
+name, so it is held back. Aluminium compounds are among the most common things in
+antiperspirants and colour cosmetics, so the true number of products in this
+corpus carrying a 1 January 2027 obligation is materially higher than 17.3 per
+cent. Both sentences belong with the number.
+
+**Three entries had no restriction text recoverable.** Several Annex III entries
+print across multiple rows with the conditions on a parent row. Those three are
+reported and never matched.
+
+**One sentence was not interpreted.** A sentence mentioning a date and the Union
+market in wording the builder does not recognise is recorded verbatim rather than
+guessed at. `on-notice --unresolved` prints it.
+
+**The register is a scan, not the law.** It covers Commission regulations amending
+Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 from 2013 onward, read from EUR-Lex: 52 listed, 52
+read, 0 that could not be downloaded. 120 dated provisions found, 703 substance
+links made, of which 21 are dated after the build and shipped. 9 provisions could
+not be tied to named substances; every one has a date already in the past, so none
+reaches the shipped register. National rules, rules outside the Cosmetics
+Regulation, and anything adopted after the build date are outside it.
+
+**A quiet answer is not a clean bill.** The tool prints what it could not see on
+every run, including runs that find nothing.
+
+## How the register is built
+
+`scripts/build_register.py` reads each regulation from EUR-Lex, parses the annex
+tables, links footnote markers to the entries carrying them, and extracts the
+dates. Four things about those documents broke a first attempt, all silently:
+
+- Regulation 2023/1545 states its deadline as "may be placed on the Union market
+  until 31 July 2026", not as "shall not be". A parser looking only for the
+  negative form reports nothing for every substance in it.
+- A footnote can put two dates and two restrictions in consecutive sentences. A
+  pattern crossing the sentence boundary pairs the first date with the second
+  restriction, and every sell-through date comes out wrong.
+- EUR-Lex serves two different markups for footnotes and prints the same marker
+  three ways.
+- Annex attribution reads from lead-in wording that takes several forms, so
+  entries were filed under the wrong annex while looking entirely correct.
+
+One fetch returned HTTP 200 with an empty body, and the build reported it as a
+regulation read with no deadlines in it, which is indistinguishable from the
+truth. Responses are now checked for Official Journal markup before being
+accepted, and a bad one is recorded as a failure rather than cached.
+
+`docs/how-it-reads-the-source.md` records what these documents actually look like.
+
+## Install
+
+Not published to the package index.
+
+```bash
+git clone https://github.com/Waiga/on-notice
+cd on-notice
+pip install -e .
+```
+
+Python 3.9 or later. No dependencies.
+
+## Licence
+
+MIT.

on_notice-0.1.0/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+# On Notice
+
+Reads a cosmetic ingredient list and reports which ingredients on it are named in
+an EU rule that carries a date still ahead of it, and what that date is.
+
+It does not say whether a product may be sold. It reports dates.
+
+## Why this one exists
+
+The other tools in this set check what is wrong with a document today. A cosmetic
+reformulation takes the better part of a year, so the question that actually costs
+money is the other one: what becomes wrong while the stock is still on the shelf.
+
+Regulation (EU) 2026/909 was adopted on 27 April 2026. It restricts Benzyl
+Salicylate in fragrance products to 4 per cent, with lower limits in eight other
+product types, and the date it bites is 1 January 2027. A product on a shelf
+today can be entirely lawful and already be on a clock, and nothing on the pack
+says so.
+
+## Use
+
+```bash
+on-notice ingredients.txt
+on-notice --unresolved          # everything the register could not settle
+cat list.txt | on-notice -
+```
+
+Exit code is 1 when something on the list has a date, 0 when nothing does, 2 when
+the register cannot be read.
+
+```
+on-notice 0.1.0   register built 2026-09-18
+read 5 ingredient(s) from night-cream.txt
+
+2 of them are named in an EU rule with a date still ahead of it.
+
+1 January 2027   products that do not meet the new restriction cannot be placed on the Union market
+    Benzyl Salicylate
+      on the label as   Benzyl Salicylate
+      named in          Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/909, Annex III entry 75
+      the rule says     From 1 January 2027 cosmetic products containing these substances and not complying with the restrictions shall not be placed on the Union market.
+```
+
+The register ships inside the package. Nothing leaves your machine.
+
+## What it was measured against
+
+The corpus is the Open Beauty Facts CSV export, `en.openbeautyfacts.org.products.csv.gz`,
+the copy generated on 18 September 2026 at 00:22 GMT, 64,237 product rows.
+`scripts/measure_corpus.py` reproduces every number below from it. 17,626 of those
+rows carry an ingredient list. 31 of those lists yielded no readable ingredient
+names at all, leaving **17,595 lists read**, median 17 ingredients each. Nothing
+in it was written by this tool or by anybody connected to it.
+
+**3,050 of the 17,595, or 17.3 per cent, name at least one substance carrying a
+date that has not arrived.** 2,703 name one such substance, 334 name two, 13 name
+three.
+
+Counted by the number of lists naming each:
+
+| Substance | Lists | Date | What the date is |
+|---|---:|---|---|
+| Benzyl Salicylate | 1,614 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Citral | 1,416 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate | 190 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Pinene | 77 | 1 August 2028 | already in force, sell-through ends |
+| Methyl Salicylate | 56 | 1 August 2028 | already in force, sell-through ends |
+| Retinol | 47 | 1 May 2027 | already in force, sell-through ends |
+| Zinc Acetate | 4 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+| Triphenyl Phosphate | 3 | 1 January 2027 | prohibition starts |
+| Geranial | 3 | 1 January 2027 | new restriction starts |
+
+Nine of the register's fourteen substances were seen at least once. The other five
+appear in no list it read, which is a fact about this corpus and not evidence that
+nothing uses them.
+
+**The corpus is not a sample of the EU market.** Open Beauty Facts is a global,
+volunteer-contributed database with a heavy western European skew. It is what was
+available and reproducible, not a representative frame, and the percentage above
+should be read as a property of that corpus rather than of the market the rules
+govern.
+
+## The first number this tool produced was wrong three times, each time in its own favour
+
+The first complete run reported **44.0 per cent**. Then **18.6 per cent**. The
+number that survived scrutiny is **17.3 per cent**. Every correction moved it
+down, which is to say every error made the tool look more impressive than it was.
+
+**First error: it counted compliance as exposure.** Around fifty of the substances
+in the first register came from Regulation (EU) 2023/1545, titled "as regards
+labelling of fragrance allergens". Quoted from Annex III as it amends it:
+
+> The presence of the substance shall be indicated in the list of ingredients
+> referred to in Article 19(1), point (g), when its concentration exceeds:
+> 0,001 % in leave-on products, 0,01 % in rinse-off products.
+
+The duty is to **name the substance in the list of ingredients**. So when a tool
+that reads printed ingredient names found Limonene on 5,301 labels, it had found
+5,301 products doing the thing the rule asks for. The products actually at risk
+print only `parfum` and never name the allergen, and no check that reads printed
+names can see a single one of them. The finding pointed the opposite way from
+what a reader would have assumed.
+
+**Second error, fixing the first: it threw away a real restriction.** Annex III
+entry 75 as replaced by Regulation 2026/909 carries **both** a 4 per cent maximum
+in fragrance products and the labelling sentence. A first fix matched the
+labelling phrase and filed the whole entry as a labelling duty, discarding a real
+restriction on 1,614 products. Same error, sign reversed.
+
+**Third error: the fix had a hole big enough for ten entries.** The strip matched
+only "The presence of **the substance** shall be indicated". Many entries read
+"The presence of the substance **or substances** shall be indicated **as
+'Eucalyptus Globulus Oil'**". Those were never stripped, so the 0,001 per cent
+labelling threshold inside the sentence was read as a concentration limit and ten
+labelling-only entries shipped as findings. One of them, Eucalyptus Globulus Leaf
+Oil at 94 lists, was the fourth row of an earlier draft of the table above.
+
+Entries are now classified from their own text, three ways rather than two. The
+labelling sentence is removed; a maximum concentration or permitted product type
+surviving that removal makes it a restriction on use. An entry in Annex II is a
+prohibition and needs no conditions column. An entry whose restriction text was
+never recovered is reported as neither, because promoting it invents a finding
+and dropping it hides a date.
+
+A separate defect from the same audit: the chemical name
+`1-(2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one (16)` had its trailing
+bracket split off as a synonym, producing a matchable substance named `16`. Any
+label carrying a bare 16 would have matched it.
+
+## What it cannot tell you
+
+**It cannot tell you whether your product complies.** Every restriction here
+catches products that do not meet a new condition, and those conditions are
+concentrations and product types. A printed ingredient list states no
+concentrations. The tool can tell you a date applies to an ingredient you use. It
+cannot tell you which side of it you are on. The rule text is printed with every
+finding so you can check it yourself.
+
+**Some conditions are not formulation choices at all.** The 1 January 2027
+condition on Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate is a limit of 10 ppm on a
+trace impurity in the filter you buy. Several entries turn on a peroxide value.
+Those are answered by a supplier certificate, not by a recipe.
+
+**Some of these rules are already in force.** Regulation 2023/1545's placing limb
+passed on 31 July 2026 and Regulation 2024/996's on 1 November 2025. What remains
+is the sell-through window. Seven of the 21 shipped entries are in that state and
+are labelled as such on every run, because calling a rule already in force "not
+yet applying" is simply false.
+
+**It cannot see the products at risk under a labelling rule.** 50 substances carry
+a dated duty to be named on the pack above a threshold. A list naming one is
+meeting that duty. The list that omits it is the one at risk and is invisible
+here. These are reported separately on every run and never counted.
+
+**The percentage understates in one direction as well as overstating in the
+other.** Annex III entry 379 as inserted by Regulation 2026/909 covers
+"Aluminium-containing ingredients with the exception of those listed in entries
+34, 50, 189, 190 and 192 of Annex III...", with the same 1 January 2027 date.
+There is no honest way to match a class with an exception list against a printed
+name, so it is held back. Aluminium compounds are among the most common things in
+antiperspirants and colour cosmetics, so the true number of products in this
+corpus carrying a 1 January 2027 obligation is materially higher than 17.3 per
+cent. Both sentences belong with the number.
+
+**Three entries had no restriction text recoverable.** Several Annex III entries
+print across multiple rows with the conditions on a parent row. Those three are
+reported and never matched.
+
+**One sentence was not interpreted.** A sentence mentioning a date and the Union
+market in wording the builder does not recognise is recorded verbatim rather than
+guessed at. `on-notice --unresolved` prints it.
+
+**The register is a scan, not the law.** It covers Commission regulations amending
+Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 from 2013 onward, read from EUR-Lex: 52 listed, 52
+read, 0 that could not be downloaded. 120 dated provisions found, 703 substance
+links made, of which 21 are dated after the build and shipped. 9 provisions could
+not be tied to named substances; every one has a date already in the past, so none
+reaches the shipped register. National rules, rules outside the Cosmetics
+Regulation, and anything adopted after the build date are outside it.
+
+**A quiet answer is not a clean bill.** The tool prints what it could not see on
+every run, including runs that find nothing.
+
+## How the register is built
+
+`scripts/build_register.py` reads each regulation from EUR-Lex, parses the annex
+tables, links footnote markers to the entries carrying them, and extracts the
+dates. Four things about those documents broke a first attempt, all silently:
+
+- Regulation 2023/1545 states its deadline as "may be placed on the Union market
+  until 31 July 2026", not as "shall not be". A parser looking only for the
+  negative form reports nothing for every substance in it.
+- A footnote can put two dates and two restrictions in consecutive sentences. A
+  pattern crossing the sentence boundary pairs the first date with the second
+  restriction, and every sell-through date comes out wrong.
+- EUR-Lex serves two different markups for footnotes and prints the same marker
+  three ways.
+- Annex attribution reads from lead-in wording that takes several forms, so
+  entries were filed under the wrong annex while looking entirely correct.
+
+One fetch returned HTTP 200 with an empty body, and the build reported it as a
+regulation read with no deadlines in it, which is indistinguishable from the
+truth. Responses are now checked for Official Journal markup before being
+accepted, and a bad one is recorded as a failure rather than cached.
+
+`docs/how-it-reads-the-source.md` records what these documents actually look like.
+
+## Install
+
+Not published to the package index.
+
+```bash
+git clone https://github.com/Waiga/on-notice
+cd on-notice
+pip install -e .
+```
+
+Python 3.9 or later. No dependencies.
+
+## Licence
+
+MIT.

on_notice-0.1.0/on_notice/__init__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+"""on-notice: which ingredients have an EU deadline that has not arrived yet.
+
+The tool reads a cosmetic ingredient list and reports the ingredients on it that
+are named in an EU regulation already adopted but not yet applying, and the date
+each restriction starts. It never says a product is legal or illegal, compliant
+or non-compliant. It reports a date and the rule that carries it.
+"""
+
+__version__ = "0.1.0"
+
+from .register import Register, Finding, load_register
+from .ingredients import read_ingredients
+
+__all__ = ["Register", "Finding", "load_register", "read_ingredients", "__version__"]

on_notice-0.1.0/on_notice/__main__.py

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+import sys
+
+from .cli import main
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    sys.exit(main())