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
This commit is contained in:
parent
6d0dfc8010
commit
7e756773de
10 changed files with 166 additions and 11 deletions
|
|
@ -113,7 +113,8 @@
|
|||
"principal",
|
||||
"purpose",
|
||||
"digest",
|
||||
"pdp_digest"
|
||||
"pdp_digest",
|
||||
"pdp_path"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"properties": {
|
||||
"action": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -147,6 +148,10 @@
|
|||
],
|
||||
"pattern": "^sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}$",
|
||||
"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. When non-null, access-engine MUST compare this to the digest it already computes and MUST NOT re-derive the native digest as a substitute. A PEP on a privileged lane MUST refuse a claim whose pdp_digest is null."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"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."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue