tegwick a0a602976e Principal is the requesting party, not the approver ... 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		2026-09-10 22:43:33 +02:00
..
APPROVAL-WP-0001-v07-alignment-and-engine-spine.md	Finish approval engine spine	2026-09-01 23:45:48 +02:00
APPROVAL-WP-0002-production-readiness-and-consumer-adoption.md	Principal is the requesting party, not the approver	2026-09-10 22:43:33 +02:00