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
tegwick
2db663fbf5