secrets-engine found that flex-auth hashes context into the request
digest while the dual-control pattern carries the claim in
context.approval, so a pdp_digest recorded at issue cannot equal the
digest of the request that carries the claim.
The resolution is forced by ordering rather than chosen: issue precedes
the decision, so pdp_digest is necessarily the digest of the underlying
action request before any claim is embedded in it. A claim cannot carry
the digest of a document containing that claim -- the value would have to
be known before it could be computed.
Record that, and record the limit of our authority: the exact exclusion
rule belongs to the PDP's digest contract, not here. This engine stores
what it was given at issue and does not compute it. Warn consumers not to
guess the exclusion, because comparing digests derived under different
rules fails open toward accepting a claim bound to a different request.
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
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
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
The ruling names docs/approval-claim.md as the step-1 artifact on the
GH-DEC-2026-003 path, but the contract did not say so. It listed only
access-engine as consumer, so an implementer reading the governed
artifact alone would not learn that PEP-shaped consumers read it as step
1, that no other envelope may be served from that endpoint, or that a PEP
validates across this claim and the step-2 DecisionEnvelope.
State the two-artifact split and the layer rule at the top, and state
that the approval fact's authority is this engine -- a consumer requiring
a state-hub authority fails closed against every correctly issued
response, which is the defect GH-DEC-2026-005 struck. Point both
consumers at the existing Required verification section.
Also update the request doc's trailing record block from proposed to
resolved with its decision id, so a reader copying it does not
reintroduce a pending record for a settled question.
Docs only; 84 tests pass.
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
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
