ADAPTIVE-WP-0009: correct stale completion note; answer inbound

T02-T04 were completed 2026-08-18; the draft-8 outcome section still said
they were outstanding. Replies sent to railiance-platform (section 11
correction accepted; tier-P-floor trigger accepted as ours, narrowing our
earlier blanket monitoring caveat) and tenant-engine (grouping unaffected,
Q5 ownership agreed, plan-derived ceiling interface welcomed as new scope).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

workplans/ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-tenancy-posture-alignment.md

@@ -4,23 +4,25 @@ type: workplan
 title: "Tenancy Posture alignment — tier assurance claims"
 domain: financials
 repo: adaptive-pricing
-status: active
+status: finished
 owner: codex
 topic_slug: helix-forge
 created: "2026-08-17"
-updated: "2026-08-17"
+updated: "2026-08-18"
 state_hub_workstream_id: "ac4f4540-75a1-4dbf-9cb7-57e5be97499f"
 ---
 
 # Tenancy Posture alignment — tier assurance claims
 
 Align `adaptive-pricing` with **NetKingdom Tenancy Posture v0.1**
-(`net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md`, proposed / draft-5),
+(`net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md`, proposed / draft-8),
 raised by `rapp-postgres` on 2026-08-17.
 
 The framework names this repo in three places: publish a posture vector
 (§20.2), map plan tiers to minimum levels jointly with `tenant-engine` (§19 Q5),
-and co-sign placement policy ownership with `railiance-platform` (§8.2 / Q2).
+and own the typed tier constraints that `railiance-platform` reconciles during
+placement (§8.2). The earlier standing co-signature proposal was declined and
+is no longer the policy.
 
 ## Position
 
@@ -78,6 +80,29 @@ guarantee therefore depends on two declarations, not one — the provider's
 reachability and the consuming service's own level. T02's constraint artifact
 must reference both or it will validate against half the picture.
 
+## Draft-8 outcome (2026-08-17)
+
+All six surviving findings were adopted, with one useful refinement to finding
+4: no record is a copied derivative. The tier definition is authoritative for
+its typed minimum and wording; the service declaration is authoritative for
+current posture; the provider declaration is authoritative for available
+infrastructure. Approval joins them and fails closed on stale or missing input.
+
+The framework now has V0–V4 availability, sanctioned honest language for
+E3/P2/R2/V1, an R-plus-P rule for retention promises, P2 or an enforceable
+governor for performance-differentiated tiers, and downgrade propagation to
+dependent tier owners. §8.2 records the declined co-signature and its typed
+constraint replacement.
+
+T01 is complete in root `tenancy.yaml`. It declares the local observatory at
+I0/A0/E0 and P/R `n/a`, rather than using `n/a` to hide its unauthenticated
+single-user HTTP surface. T06 is complete because the amendments are in
+draft-8. T02–T04 were completed on 2026-08-18: the typed `assurance_claims`
+block, the hard boundary constraint and the tier-definition approval gate are
+all in place, with the suite green. No current model carries an assurance
+claim, so the absence is a declared capability gap rather than a live
+over-claim.
+
 ## Draft-6 update (2026-08-17)
 
 The framework moved to **draft-6** (`net-kingdom` commit `2744ce7`) after this
@@ -160,7 +185,7 @@ Findings 6–7 are new, from draft-6 itself.
 
 ```task
 id: ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-T01
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 state_hub_task_id: "870c32dc-89dd-415f-b45f-f9484dd5119b"
 ```
@@ -168,7 +193,7 @@ state_hub_task_id: "870c32dc-89dd-415f-b45f-f9484dd5119b"
 Publish `adaptive-pricing`'s posture vector per §5 / §20.2, declared in-repo
 (Decision 5.1).
 
-The honest answer is that the five ladders do not fit: this repo is a
+The honest answer is that the datastore ladders do not fit: this repo is a
 design-time analysis and definition surface with **no runtime multi-tenant
 datastore**. §3.3 scopes the P and R ladders to "a service's primary datastore";
 adaptive-pricing has none. It does hold customer-attributable commercial data
@@ -176,18 +201,17 @@ adaptive-pricing has none. It does hold customer-attributable commercial data
 Coulomb proving ground — which is a data-handling fact worth stating, and not a
 tenancy posture.
 
-Declare `not-applicable` per axis with reasoning rather than forcing a row of
+Completed in `tenancy.yaml`. P and R are `n/a` because there is no runtime
-zeros. §20.2 invites exactly this: "if a repo cannot express itself in these five
+datastore. I/A/E/V are zero with reasons because the local observatory HTTP
-ladders, the ladders are wrong and this document changes, not the repo." Report
+surface exists and has no authentication, authorization, tenant enforcement or
-the finding as the framework asked to have it reported, and propose a
+availability position. A repo-level row of `n/a` would have concealed that
-`no-runtime-datastore` declaration form so other design-time repos are not
+surface.
-pushed into a misleading `P0 R0`.
 
 ## Extend The Canonical Schema With Assurance Claims
 
 ```task
 id: ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-T02
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 state_hub_task_id: "4420edb0-c9ea-4d2c-850e-2435cbd57f34"
 ```
@@ -197,7 +221,7 @@ Add an **optional** `assurance_claims` block to the canonical pricing schema
 
 Shape: claim kind (`isolation` | `availability` | `retention` | `performance`),
 customer-facing wording, the minimum levels it requires
-(`{I,A,E,P,R}` — plus availability once §11.3's vocabulary exists), the
+(`{I,A,E,P,R,V}`), the
 delivering service, and an evidence reference.
 
 Constraints:
@@ -209,11 +233,17 @@ Constraints:
 - Do not extend `commitments` for this. A commitment is something the customer
   owes; an assurance claim is something we owe them.
 
+Completed 2026-08-18. `PricingModel.assurance_claims` is optional and defaults
+to an empty tuple, preserving every existing silent tier. The validator checks
+claim identity, kind, customer wording, typed in-range axis minima, delivering
+service, evidence, erasure horizon and mechanism. The canonical shape and its
+definition-time semantics are documented in `docs/PricingModelSchema.md`.
+
 ## Add Boundary-Engine Validation For Claims
 
 ```task
 id: ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-T03
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: high
 state_hub_task_id: "96c3340d-2429-4901-800c-2c7144ab14f4"
 ```
@@ -234,11 +264,17 @@ Each failure must explain which axis and which framework section it answers to.
 A validator that says "non-conformant" without naming the axis reproduces the
 conflation §3 exists to end.
 
+Completed 2026-08-18. The hard `assurance-claims` boundary constraint is silent
+for tiers without claims and produces axis- and section-specific failures for
+the E4/P3 coupling, shared-substrate erasure horizons, R4 wording,
+key-destruction language, performance governors and availability failure scope.
+Focused and full-suite regression coverage is green.
+
 ## Gate Claims At Tier Definition
 
 ```task
 id: ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-T04
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 state_hub_task_id: "9821bc6b-d8ec-41e2-b4ea-ebf1f2dc91a6"
 ```
@@ -252,11 +288,18 @@ rule that customer-visible pricing changes are never autonomous.
 Explicitly **not** per-campaign review. §11.3 says the review happens at tier
 definition; a gate that fires more often than that will be worked around.
 
+Completed 2026-08-18. `assess_tier_definition_assurance()` compares the new
+tier definition with its previously approved definition and emits blocking
+approval requirements only for added, changed or removed claims. Each gate
+carries the claim's evidence reference. An unchanged definition proceeds, and
+the API explicitly warns publication/campaign callers not to turn it into a
+recurring gate.
+
 ## Answer Q5 And Q2
 
 ```task
 id: ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-T05
-status: wait
+status: done
 priority: high
 state_hub_task_id: "3aa82ae3-4a79-4a18-a74e-668e94652ecd"
 ```
@@ -264,8 +307,8 @@ state_hub_task_id: "3aa82ae3-4a79-4a18-a74e-668e94652ecd"
 Blocked on T02/T03 for Q5, and on Bernd's decision for Q2.
 
 **Q5 — tier → minimum level mapping,** jointly with `tenant-engine`. Answerable
-for isolation and retention once T02/T03 land. **Not answerable for
+for isolation, retention and availability once T02/T03 land. V now supplies the
-availability** until finding 1 is resolved; say so rather than inventing a level.
+availability vocabulary; the typed mapping still waits on implementation.
 `tenant-engine` owns which plan a tenant holds; this repo owns the terms — state
 that split when replying so the seam is recorded.
 
@@ -294,11 +337,22 @@ a repo with no on-call. Propose it is railiance-platform's.
 
 Reply on the State Hub to message `6d5293ca-4f69-46a6-a78e-b469e626b83d`.
 
+Completed 2026-08-18. Q5 is implemented as the typed `assurance_claims`
+artifact: adaptive-pricing owns the authoritative tier wording and minima;
+tenant-engine owns assignment of a tenant to the tier id and does not copy the
+terms; railiance-platform joins current service/provider declarations during
+placement reconciliation. The current three Coulomb tiers remain explicitly
+silent and therefore define no minima. Q2 remains declined: placement has one
+owner and a machine-enforced artifact boundary, not a nominal co-signature.
+railiance-platform owns trigger monitoring because adaptive-pricing has no
+runtime/on-call surface. The implementation answer was sent on State Hub after
+the full suite passed (54 tests).
+
 ## Contribute Framework Amendments Back
 
 ```task
 id: ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-T06
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 state_hub_task_id: "489cffb7-9ec3-4335-a93c-0b276a843f8d"
 ```
@@ -336,3 +390,6 @@ Proposed amendments:
 
 Route via `policy-nexus` if it owns canon publication; otherwise direct to
 `rapp-postgres` as the raising agent and `net-kingdom` as canon owner.
+
+Completed in NetKingdom draft-8. All surviving findings were incorporated;
+finding 6 remains withdrawn as resolved by draft-7.