approval-engine/README.md

# approval-engine

**The approval as a durable, authenticated, consumable object — issued before an
action, verified at the moment of use, and provably not replayable.**

An Engine, role **PIP**, in the NetKingdom security layer model (statute v0.7,
accepted; operative form `net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md`). It answers one
question, totally and decidably:

> Is this approval valid right now — for this exact action, target, actor, and
> purpose — and has it already been used?

It does **not** decide whether the action is permitted. That is `access-engine`,
which stays NetKingdom's only policy decision point. An approval is one input to
that decision.

Deliberately small, boring, and strict: atomic supersession and single
consumption are what make Canon test `T-06 — Approval Replay` passable.
Flexibility here would be a defect. Graded, evidence-based progression belongs to
`maturity-engine`; the two engines are deliberate opposites.

See [INTENT.md](INTENT.md) and [SCOPE.md](SCOPE.md). Declaration: [layer.yaml](layer.yaml).
Origin: `flex-auth` `FLEX-DEC-2026-001`, raised while assenting to the security
layer model.
Initial commit 2026-08-28 20:27:28 +00:00			`# approval-engine`

Seed INTENT and correct the README's concept approval-engine owns the approval object: durable, authenticated entries, atomic supersession, single consumption, revocation without holder cooperation. It is an Engine; access-engine remains the only decision point and consumes approvals as input claims. Origin: the unowned half of the approval contract, raised by flex-auth in FLEX-DEC-2026-001 while assenting to the security layer model. Not gate-house (Staff holds no runtime state), not access-engine (an evaluator that owns what it evaluates is self-dealing), not audit-core (append-only, wrong property). The seed README described this as "modelling and managing decisions" — withdrawn. Under the standard, "decision" is access-engine's word. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9 2026-08-28 22:33:50 +02:00			`**The approval as a durable, authenticated, consumable object — issued before an`
			`action, verified at the moment of use, and provably not replayable.**`

Align to security layer model v0.7 and open the engine spine The statute is accepted at v0.7; the operative form is net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md v0.2. INTENT now declares Engine / PIP in its own voice, carries the §9.6 threat decomposition, the load-bearing heartbeat obligation, issuer and freshness on the claim, consumption as a mutation, and the custody question closed rather than held open. SCOPE.md is the first-cut boundary (nothing shipped). layer.yaml is the machine-readable declaration. The review under history/ scores intent vs scope vs the empty implementation. APPROVAL-WP-0001 sequences contracts before code and keeps consumption unimplemented until GH-WP-0002-T06. Registered with State Hub as infotech / approval-engine. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9 2026-08-29 11:58:28 +02:00			`An Engine, role PIP, in the NetKingdom security layer model (statute v0.7,`
			accepted; operative form `net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md`). It answers one
			`question, totally and decidably:`
Seed INTENT and correct the README's concept approval-engine owns the approval object: durable, authenticated entries, atomic supersession, single consumption, revocation without holder cooperation. It is an Engine; access-engine remains the only decision point and consumes approvals as input claims. Origin: the unowned half of the approval contract, raised by flex-auth in FLEX-DEC-2026-001 while assenting to the security layer model. Not gate-house (Staff holds no runtime state), not access-engine (an evaluator that owns what it evaluates is self-dealing), not audit-core (append-only, wrong property). The seed README described this as "modelling and managing decisions" — withdrawn. Under the standard, "decision" is access-engine's word. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9 2026-08-28 22:33:50 +02:00
			`> Is this approval valid right now — for this exact action, target, actor, and`
			`> purpose — and has it already been used?`

			It does not decide whether the action is permitted. That is `access-engine`,
			`which stays NetKingdom's only policy decision point. An approval is one input to`
			`that decision.`

			`Deliberately small, boring, and strict: atomic supersession and single`
			consumption are what make Canon test `T-06 — Approval Replay` passable.
			`Flexibility here would be a defect. Graded, evidence-based progression belongs to`
			`maturity-engine`; the two engines are deliberate opposites.

Align to security layer model v0.7 and open the engine spine The statute is accepted at v0.7; the operative form is net-kingdom/SECURITY-COMPANION.md v0.2. INTENT now declares Engine / PIP in its own voice, carries the §9.6 threat decomposition, the load-bearing heartbeat obligation, issuer and freshness on the claim, consumption as a mutation, and the custody question closed rather than held open. SCOPE.md is the first-cut boundary (nothing shipped). layer.yaml is the machine-readable declaration. The review under history/ scores intent vs scope vs the empty implementation. APPROVAL-WP-0001 sequences contracts before code and keeps consumption unimplemented until GH-WP-0002-T06. Registered with State Hub as infotech / approval-engine. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9 2026-08-29 11:58:28 +02:00			`See [INTENT.md](INTENT.md) and [SCOPE.md](SCOPE.md). Declaration: [layer.yaml](layer.yaml).`
			Origin: `flex-auth` `FLEX-DEC-2026-001`, raised while assenting to the security
			`layer model.`