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
tegwick
a0a602976e