tegwick
0c481deef9
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 The seed README described this as "modelling and managing decisions" — withdrawn.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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| INTENT.md | ||
| 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 in the NetKingdom security layer model. 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. Origin: flex-auth FLEX-DEC-2026-001, raised while
assenting to the security layer model.