# Application access readback

Status: proposed, for review with user-engine
Date: 2026-10-09
Workplan: `FLEX-WP-0035-T01`
Decision: `FLEX-DEC-2026-019`
Consumer: user-engine (`USER-WP-0026-T03`, `USER-WP-0028-T02`)

user-engine wants to show a signed-in person which applications they can use.
This document defines what access-engine answers to that request, what the
answer means, and what it must never be used for.

## 1. Constraints from the current runtime

1. **One pin evaluates one consumer.** Each `flex-auth-<consumer>` Deployment
   loads one `--registry` snapshot and one `--policy` package. The
   `flex-auth-user-engine` pin holds no rules for any other application. It
   cannot answer for them, and widening it to do so would mix packages.
2. **Caller auth is per system.** `/v1/batch_check` authorizes the caller
   token against every `resource.system` in the batch. A caller bound to
   `user-engine` gets 403 for any other system. That is correct, and it stays.
3. **There is no common action.** Each package has its own action
   vocabulary. "May use the application" has no meaning until a package says
   what it means.
4. **Registry content is not in decision provenance** until G1
   (`FLEX-WP-0019`). Under the 2026-08-19 boundary, anything that decides an
   allow belongs in a versioned policy package, not in the registry.
5. **No key-cape client binding exists** in `protected_system_manifest`.

## 2. The readback action: `application.access`, opted into per package

A system takes part in the readback by declaring the action
`application.access` in its own policy package and giving it rules there.

- The rules are the system's own. They are reviewed, versioned and tested like
  any other action, and the decision records `policy_package_digest`.
- A system whose package does not declare the action answers
  `not_applicable`. user-engine renders that as `unavailable`.
- **No registry-level mapping.** Mapping "application access" onto an existing
  action in the registry was considered and rejected. Under constraint 4 it
  would let content outside provenance decide an allow.

`application.access` means: this subject, holding these claims, may begin to
use the application. It grants nothing inside the application. Every action
the application performs is still checked by that application's PEP against
its own pin.

## 3. The answer is advisory and cannot be transferred

A readback decision is a real flex-auth decision. It is evaluated, recorded
and attributable, but it cannot be accepted as an enforcement decision by any
PEP:

- The binding carries `purpose: "readback"`. The field is part of the hashed
  request, so `request_digest` and `submitted_request_digest` can never equal
  those of an enforcement request for the same subject and resource. Under
  §6.4.2 a PEP's digest comparison therefore fails.
- The readback route evaluates only `application.access`. Any other action is
  refused with 400 before evaluation. The readback surface cannot produce a
  decision about a real operation.
- The decision is evaluated over the claims that user-engine presents for the
  signed-in person, taken from its key-cape session. It is only as current as
  those claims. The target application's PEP receives its own claims on its
  own path.

## 4. Where it runs: a dedicated readback pin

The readback runs on a dedicated pin, `flex-auth-application-readback`. It
loads the participating systems' packages at **the same package digests**
their own pins run, plus a merged registry snapshot.

- Drift control: each decision states the `policy_package_digest` of the
  package it used. A test compares every package digest in the readback pin's
  values against that consumer's own pin values, and fails on any mismatch.
- The only admitted caller is a readback binding (T02), for example
  `application-readback=system:serviceaccount:user-engine:user-engine`. That
  binding authorizes the readback route only. It never authorizes `/v1/check`
  or `/v1/batch_check` on any pin.
- Rejected alternative: fan out from user-engine, or from a readback service,
  to each consumer pin. That needs a caller binding and an ingress rule on
  every consumer pin, which is exactly the widening constraint 2 forbids. It
  also makes per-page latency the sum of N pins.

Code needed: `serve` today takes one `--policy`. The readback pin needs a
multi-package mode keyed by `resource.system`, restricted to
`application.access`.

## 5. Request and response

```http
POST /v1/readback/application_access
```

```json
{
  "subject": {"issuer": "https://key-cape…/realms/…", "sub": "…", "type": "user"},
  "context": {"groups": ["…"], "acr": "…", "amr": ["pwd", "otp"], "auth_time": 0},
  "systems": ["informed-decision", "markitect"]
}
```

Response, one entry per requested system and in request order:

```json
{
  "registry_snapshot_digest": "sha256:…",
  "results": [
    {
      "system": "informed-decision",
      "effect": "allow",
      "decision_id": "decision:…",
      "lifetime": {"expires_at": "…"},
      "revocation_visibility": {
        "claims": "immediate",
        "registry": "reload_or_lifetime",
        "policy_package": "reload_or_lifetime",
        "directory": "next_check"
      },
      "policy_package": "informed-decision.lifecycle",
      "policy_package_digest": "sha256:…"
    },
    {"system": "markitect", "effect": "not_applicable", "reason": "no application.access rule"}
  ]
}
```

- `effect` is one of `allow`, `deny`, `not_applicable`. A system the pin does
  not know answers `not_applicable`; it is never omitted. A whole-request
  failure is a non-2xx response, and user-engine renders every row
  `unavailable`.
- `revocation_visibility` restates per input class the deadlines published
  in `docs/decision-input-freshness.md`. It contains nothing new. The
  readback commits to no more than §9.7 already does.
- user-engine must not display an allow past `lifetime.expires_at`, and must
  re-read rather than extend.

## 6. Records

Readback decisions are recorded like any decision. They form their own event
class, `readback`, declared in `cadence.yaml` as not load-bearing: a readback
`allow` authorizes nothing. Under `FLEX-DEC-2026-018`, a failed commit still
withholds an allow (503, rendered `unavailable`) and still releases
`deny`/`not_applicable`.

## 7. Registry projection (T03)

```http
GET /v1/readback/systems
```

The response lists every system in the merged snapshot: `id`, `name`,
`client_binding` (`{issuer, client_id}` or absent), `readback` (whether its
package declares `application.access`), and the `registry_snapshot_digest`.

This needs one new optional field on `protected_system_manifest`:
`client_binding`. A system without one is still listed, and user-engine's rule
then excludes it from the workload catalogue. The projection authorizes
nothing. It describes what the readback pin knows.

## 8. Grants

Grants and revocations stay inside access-engine, in packages and registry
content under their normal review. This work gives user-domain admins no grant
or revoke surface.

## 9. Open questions for user-engine review

1. **Claim set.** Is forwarding the session's verified claims (groups, `acr`,
   `amr`, `auth_time`) acceptable to you? Or do you want the readback to
   resolve groups itself? Resolving them itself would add a directory
   dependency.
2. **First participants.** The proposal is informed-decision first: a
   human-facing web app with KeyCape AAL2 rules already in its packages. Which
   applications do you need in your first release?
3. **Batch size.** The ceiling is 64 systems per request. Is that enough?
4. **Record volume.** Each page view produces N decision records. If that is
   too much, the alternative is a shorter TTL plus client-side reuse up to
   `expires_at`, not unrecorded decisions.