Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
{
"$schema" : "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema" ,
"$id" : "https://approval-engine.netkingdom/schemas/approval_claim.schema.json" ,
"title" : "ApprovalClaim" ,
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"description" : "Input claim that access-engine consumes. This is a fact about an approval object, not a decision. Yields to the Taxonomy request-claim schema (statute \u00a717) when that artifact exists and is assented; do not treat this local shape as permanent." ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"type" : "object" ,
"additionalProperties" : false ,
"required" : [
"schema_version" ,
"kind" ,
"issuer" ,
"approval_id" ,
"state" ,
"valid_now" ,
"consumed" ,
"binding" ,
"freshness" ,
"validity" ,
"reason_code"
] ,
"properties" : {
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"schema_version" : {
"const" : "0.1"
} ,
"kind" : {
"const" : "approval-claim"
} ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"yields_to" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"description" : "Taxonomy artifact this contract yields to. Informational; consumers must not branch on it."
} ,
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"issuer" : {
"const" : "approval-engine"
} ,
"approval_id" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"format" : "uuid"
} ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"state" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"enum" : [
"requested" ,
"approved" ,
"valid" ,
"consumed" ,
"superseded" ,
"revoked" ,
"expired"
]
} ,
"valid_now" : {
"type" : "boolean" ,
"description" : "True only when the object is approved, inside its validity window, and not consumed, superseded, revoked, or expired. Not a permission."
} ,
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"consumed" : {
"type" : "boolean"
} ,
"binding" : {
"$ref" : "#/$defs/binding"
} ,
"freshness" : {
"$ref" : "#/$defs/freshness"
} ,
"validity" : {
"$ref" : "#/$defs/validity"
} ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"reason_code" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"enum" : [
"ok" ,
"requested" ,
"not_yet_valid" ,
"insufficient_approvers" ,
"expired" ,
"revoked" ,
"superseded" ,
"consumed"
]
}
} ,
"not" : {
"anyOf" : [
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
{
"required" : [
"effect"
]
} ,
{
"required" : [
"decision"
]
} ,
{
"required" : [
"allow"
]
} ,
{
"required" : [
"deny"
]
}
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
]
} ,
"$defs" : {
"binding" : {
"type" : "object" ,
"additionalProperties" : false ,
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"required" : [
"action" ,
"target" ,
"actor" ,
"principal" ,
"purpose" ,
"digest" ,
Implement GH-DEC-2026-008: declared PDP-path intent, enforced at issue
Gate House ruled binding.pdp_digest is the binding correspondence on the
GH-DEC-2026-003 path and is required there, having rejected a vocabulary
mapping for the reasons we gave. It asked this engine to record the PDP
digest at issue for approvals intended for that path, and to have the
claim state which approvals those are rather than leaving it to the
requester's memory.
Schema v3 adds approvals.pdp_path. create() refuses pdp_path true without
a pdp_digest, so an approval that would be unusable on the path fails at
issue rather than at the protected side effect. The claim exposes
binding.pdp_path, which makes it a guarantee rather than a hint: pdp_path
true implies pdp_digest is non-null.
Intent is declared and never inferred. A pdp_digest that happens to be
present is not a declaration anybody made, so a recorded digest alone
leaves pdp_path false, legacy rows migrate to false rather than being
back-filled from their digests, and a successor inherits its
predecessor's declaration. Approvals issued before the ruling stay usable
by consumers in this engine's own vocabulary and are simply not usable on
the PDP path -- the ruling's intended cost, stated as such.
Schema, both published examples, a v2-to-v3 migration test asserting
survivors keep their digest while declaring no path intent, and tests for
refusal at issue, claim exposure, non-inference, and successor
inheritance. 102 tests pass (8 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 14:51:23 +02:00
"pdp_digest" ,
"pdp_path"
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
] ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"properties" : {
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"action" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"minLength" : 1
} ,
"target" : {
"type" : "object"
} ,
"actor" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"minLength" : 1
} ,
"principal" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"minLength" : 1
} ,
"purpose" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"minLength" : 1
} ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"digest" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"pattern" : "^sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}$" ,
"description" : "SHA-256 over the canonical JSON of action, actor, principal, purpose, target (sorted keys, RFC 8259). Distinguishes approved from approved-for-this-exact-request."
} ,
"pdp_digest" : {
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"type" : [
"string" ,
"null"
] ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"pattern" : "^sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}$" ,
2026-09-06 20:35:59 +02:00
"description" : "The flex-auth NewDecisionBinding request_digest recorded at issue time, or null when the approval was not issued against a PDP decision. Always present so its absence is a stated fact rather than a missing key. Recorded at issue, so it is the digest of the action request as it stands before this claim is embedded in it. At execute time on a claim-bearing request the comparison target is the PDP's claim-excluded digest -- flex-auth publishes it as binding.approval_binding_digest (FLEX-DEC-2026-007) -- and NOT binding.request_digest, which covers the carried claim and therefore can never equal a digest recorded before that claim existed. When non-null, a consumer MUST compare this to the PDP's published exclusion-scoped digest and MUST NOT re-derive the native digest as a substitute, and MUST NOT guess the exclusion rule. A PEP on a privileged lane MUST refuse a claim whose pdp_digest is null."
Implement GH-DEC-2026-008: declared PDP-path intent, enforced at issue
Gate House ruled binding.pdp_digest is the binding correspondence on the
GH-DEC-2026-003 path and is required there, having rejected a vocabulary
mapping for the reasons we gave. It asked this engine to record the PDP
digest at issue for approvals intended for that path, and to have the
claim state which approvals those are rather than leaving it to the
requester's memory.
Schema v3 adds approvals.pdp_path. create() refuses pdp_path true without
a pdp_digest, so an approval that would be unusable on the path fails at
issue rather than at the protected side effect. The claim exposes
binding.pdp_path, which makes it a guarantee rather than a hint: pdp_path
true implies pdp_digest is non-null.
Intent is declared and never inferred. A pdp_digest that happens to be
present is not a declaration anybody made, so a recorded digest alone
leaves pdp_path false, legacy rows migrate to false rather than being
back-filled from their digests, and a successor inherits its
predecessor's declaration. Approvals issued before the ruling stay usable
by consumers in this engine's own vocabulary and are simply not usable on
the PDP path -- the ruling's intended cost, stated as such.
Schema, both published examples, a v2-to-v3 migration test asserting
survivors keep their digest while declaring no path intent, and tests for
refusal at issue, claim exposure, non-inference, and successor
inheritance. 102 tests pass (8 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 14:51:23 +02:00
} ,
"pdp_path" : {
"type" : "boolean" ,
"description" : "Whether this approval was declared at issue for the GH-DEC-2026-003 PDP consumption path. GH-DEC-2026-008 requires pdp_digest on that path, so this engine refuses to create a pdp_path approval without one; a true value therefore guarantees pdp_digest is non-null. A consumer on that path MUST require pdp_path true and MUST NOT infer path intent from a pdp_digest that merely happens to be present."
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
}
}
} ,
"freshness" : {
"type" : "object" ,
"additionalProperties" : false ,
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"required" : [
"observed_at" ,
"ttl_seconds" ,
"not_after"
] ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"properties" : {
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"observed_at" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"format" : "date-time"
} ,
"ttl_seconds" : {
"type" : "integer" ,
"minimum" : 1
} ,
"not_after" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"format" : "date-time"
}
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
}
} ,
"validity" : {
"type" : "object" ,
"additionalProperties" : false ,
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"required" : [
"not_before" ,
"expires_at"
] ,
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
"properties" : {
State pdp_digest explicitly; decline to publish a vocabulary mapping
flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish an action/target
mapping between the claim binding's vocabulary (secrets.kv.destroy,
{"id": "lane-openbao-root"}) and a policy package's (destroy, lane:...),
since their package makes no cross-check that a claim was approved for
the action being decided.
Answered no. A PIP asserting that one vocabulary's action means
another's would author policy semantics it does not own, over
vocabularies it does not own, and the failure mode is asymmetric: a wrong
mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action, which
is worse than no mapping. binding.pdp_digest is the correspondence and
sidesteps vocabulary entirely -- it compares the PDP's own digest to the
PDP's own digest, with no translation by anyone.
Implemented the part that was ours. pdp_digest was emitted only when
recorded, so a consumer could not distinguish "not issued against a
decision" from "we forgot to look". It is now always present and null in
that case, required-but-nullable in the schema, and documented as
something a PEP on a privileged lane must refuse. This engine states the
fact; enforcing the lane's policy stays with the consumer.
Both published examples were already contradicting the updated schema by
omitting the field -- the same fixture-versus-contract defect flex-auth
hit twice this week and that secrets-engine implemented. Fixed both, made
them cover the PDP-bound and unbound shapes so neither is inferred from
the other, and added tests/test_examples.py to validate every example
against the schema so the class cannot recur here. jsonschema added as a
dev dependency.
94 tests pass (6 new).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvyJPAaVCGsVheVhcCwNND
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 411227@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d566f6d3-bcaf-43c3-bc5e-3ddd0f64b535
2026-09-06 09:32:11 +02:00
"not_before" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"format" : "date-time"
} ,
"expires_at" : {
"type" : "string" ,
"format" : "date-time"
}
Implement the engine spine: claim, outbox, machine, API
Contracts first (T02–T04): approval claim schema with issuer, freshness,
and binding digest; local transactional outbox wire; load-bearing cadence
as heartbeat or reconciliation (layer.yaml declared).
Then the object (T06–T08): SQLite closed state machine, CAS supersession,
distinct-approver fail-closed, revocation without holder cooperation,
outbox insert in the same transaction. Tests fail the mutation when
emission fails, and revoke while the drain sink is down.
Introspection GET /v1/approvals/{id}/claim is a PIP fact, not a decision.
No public consume (T05 waits on GH-WP-0002-T06). Canon T-06 coverage for
wrong binding, expiry, revoke, and supersede.
FLEX-WP-0017 T03 is unblocked on this object; T05 remains blocked only on
consumption ordering.
Assistant: grok
Assistant-Session: 01a04ceb-2057-7e20-b0f9-c282964d5dd9
2026-08-29 12:52:49 +02:00
}
}
}
}
