informed-decision asked whether its binding.principal and ours name the same
field, since both GH rulings said its slice canonicalizes "two of the five".
They do not: ours is the party on whose behalf the act is performed, taken from
the decision request's subject, while theirs is the approver — which appears
here only as an entry and never in binding. Only target overlaps.
Records the four-role distinction normatively in docs/approval-claim.md and
guards it with a test asserting the act digest is insensitive to the approver
while the approver stays recorded on the entry. Folding approver identity into
the digest would now break view_hash's assumption here rather than silently in
that repository.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QDzGbdDFnVJBxDgdp7RvpH
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2191554@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: d69bb7c3-b7b2-41c4-8287-6baef48c0993
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
