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 The seed README described this as "modelling and managing decisions" — withdrawn.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
22 lines
986 B
Markdown
22 lines
986 B
Markdown
# 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](INTENT.md). Origin: `flex-auth` `FLEX-DEC-2026-001`, raised while
|
|
assenting to the security layer model.
|