approval-engine/workplans/APPROVAL-WP-0002-production-readiness-and-consumer-adoption.md

---
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002
type: workplan
title: "Production readiness and consumer adoption"
domain: infotech
repo: approval-engine
status: active
owner: codex
topic_slug: netkingdom
created: "2026-09-01"
updated: "2026-09-10"
reviewed_at: "2026-09-01"
reviewed_against_commit: "ebce5abb276c01ab29ce2526f3b8abb332dc9e90"
reviewed_note: >-
  Reviewed against approval-engine's finished spine, KeyCape's RS256/JWKS and
  service-token contract, access-engine caller-auth/binding surface,
  audit-core's deployed authenticated ingestion plus open AUDIT-WP-0009
  approval-source/cadence/reconciliation tasks, and secrets-engine's waiting
  exact-action/decision-consumption tasks. Repo-owned implementation can
  proceed; live T03-T05 closure remains evidence-gated on those owners.
origin: residual
origin_ref: APPROVAL-WP-0001
state_hub_workstream_id: "4fa25ad5-f5d0-5592-aa59-085f8ee3edaf"
---

# APPROVAL-WP-0002 — Production readiness and consumer adoption

Move the completed first-cut engine spine into an authenticated, durable,
observable production service and prove one PEP integration end to end. This is
the residual production scope deliberately excluded from APPROVAL-WP-0001.

The workplan is proposed pending review against the deployment estate and the
current key-cape, access-engine, audit-core, and secrets-engine contracts.

Review completed 2026-09-01. The plan is active. Production mode will verify
KeyCape JWT signatures and exact issuer/audience/scopes; local caller-supplied
identity never becomes authenticated evidence. SQLite remains the first
production store only as a single-replica StatefulSet with explicit migration,
backup, integrity, and restore gates. audit-core delivery can be implemented
against its existing authenticated idempotent ingest, while heartbeat findings,
count reconciliation, and sender registration remain external gates in
`AUDIT-WP-0009` T04/T06/T09. The first live PEP proof remains jointly gated on
secrets-engine T04/T02 and deployment of this service.

## Authenticate lifecycle mutations and approver evidence

```task
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002-T01
status: progress
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "dc4523f5-e0af-5734-a0ef-07aa7f2b2a27"
```

Bind create, approval-entry, revoke, supersede, and consume callers to
authenticated identities. An API-supplied `subject_id`, `actor`, or
`decision_id` is provenance only until independently authenticated. Keep
authorization decisions in access-engine and approval doctrine in gate-house.

Acceptance: production startup requires a signature-valid KeyCape JWT verifier;
every non-health API route requires an explicit scope; approval entry identity
and assurance come only from verified claims; create binds `binding.actor` to
the authenticated subject; consume is restricted to service/agent principals;
missing, expired, wrong-issuer, wrong-audience, wrong-scope, or unverifiable
tokens fail closed without mutation.

Repository implementation complete 2026-09-02: RS256/JWKS verification,
issuer/audience/time/profile validation, exact scopes, store-tenant isolation,
verified approver evidence, and a deny-all default are covered by tests.

2026-09-02 follow-up: fail-closed coverage now includes wrong signature, HS256,
empty/invalid profile claims, deny-all mutation refusal, human-principal consume
rejection, and production CLI refusal of static tokens / missing audit
delivery. Requested KeyCape registrations are in
`docs/keycape-service-registrations.md` (`aud` MUST be the resource server
`approval-engine`, not the OAuth client id). Remains `progress` until KeyCape
owns and proves those audience/client/scope registrations.

2026-09-06 follow-up: a tenant collision in the deployment inputs is now
recorded in `docs/keycape-service-registrations.md`. The manifest serves
`--tenant platform` while the requested client registrations issue
`tenant: tenant:coulomb`, and `ApiApplication.identity` compares the two with
exact string equality before any object lookup — so tokens issued under the
current registrations would be denied `403` on every non-health route.
flex-auth's `tenant:platform` CheckRequest subject is a PDP input this engine
never reads and cannot participate in the comparison. Denial evidence:
`tests/test_auth.py::test_wrong_tenant_is_forbidden`. The values are left as-is
deliberately: resolving it requires an owner statement on whether `platform` and
`tenant:coulomb` name the same layer, and guessing grants cross-tenant access to
the approval store. The registrations doc's stale issuer
(`https://auth.netkingdom.local`) is corrected to the live
`https://kc.coulomb.social` from `06544b0`. T01 stays `progress`.

2026-09-06 resolution: the operator accepted `tenant:platform` as the platform
management/administration/services tenant (landlord zone) — decision
`5ed3fb35-eca9-413a-82b9-95171ba85bf6`,
`glas-harness/docs/platform-tenant-decision.md`, relayed by `glas-harness`. The
collision above is closed by setting the store tenant to exactly
`tenant:platform`: `deploy/approval-engine.yaml` `--tenant`, the
`approval_engine/cli.py` `--tenant` default, and the `Engine(tenant=…)` default
all move off bare `platform`, and the requested client registrations now ask for
`tenant: tenant:platform`. Exact JWT/store equality is retained — no alias, no
normalisation, no prefix handling, and no implicit cross-tenant grant.

Moving the *defaults* rather than only the manifest is deliberate: a default of
`platform` under a sanctioned value of `tenant:platform` is a trap, because a
`serve` that omits `--tenant` would come up healthy and then refuse every
authenticated call.

The default change broke ten tests whose identity fixtures hard-coded
`platform`, which is the fixture-consistency hazard flex-auth reported as
`FLEX-DEC-2026-008` (29 fixtures all carrying one tenant proved nothing about
the field). Fixtures are aligned to the exact spelling, and the field is now
*varied* rather than merely present:
`tests/test_auth.py::test_near_miss_tenant_spellings_are_forbidden` refuses
`platform`, `tenant:coulomb`, case variants, whitespace variants and empty
against a `tenant:platform` store, and
`test_exact_sanctioned_tenant_is_admitted` pins the other half so a
reject-everything bug cannot pass. 111 tests pass.

This resolves the choice of value only. T01 stays `progress`: KeyCape still has
to own and prove these registrations, and credential materialization is
unchanged.

2026-09-08 follow-up: key-cape (`KEY-WP-0013-T02`) asked for the human approver
client's exact `client_id` and full callback URI. Neither is supplied, and
neither is guessed: this engine is a bearer-token resource server with no
redirect endpoint, no authorization-code/PKCE code and no Ingress or external
origin (`deploy/approval-engine.yaml` is Namespace + ClusterIP + StatefulSet),
so no callback URI exists here to register — and redirects match exactly at
`/authorize`, so an invented value either fails closed or registers an origin no
component owns. The human browser client belongs to an approver UI that this
repo does not contain and `APPROVAL-WP-0002` does not name; the two strings must
come from that component's owner. Confirmed to key-cape in the same reply: this
resource validates the **access** token (`Authorization: Bearer`, RS256 via the
issuer's `/jwks`, checking `iss`, `aud=approval-engine`, expiry, `sub`,
`principal_type`, `tenant`, `roles`, `scope`, `assurance`); `id_token` appears
nowhere in the codebase. Recorded in `docs/keycape-service-registrations.md`.
T01 stays `progress`.

2026-09-09 follow-up: the operator established `informed-decision`
(`INFD-WP-0001`) as the owner of the browser-facing approver surface, closing
the unassigned dependency recorded the previous day. Requirements issued to it
in `docs/approver-surface-requirements.md`: the two routes an approver surface
needs, the hard token claims, error/disposition mapping, and the standing
refusal to expose an inbox listing or a decision. Three items need an owner's
answer rather than an implementation: (A) the human client's specified
`allowedScopes` `[openid, approval:approve]` cannot `GET /v1/approvals/{id}`, so
the surface could submit an entry it was never able to render — we recommend
adding `approval:read` to the human client over reading through a BFF service
client, and this needs a key-cape decision; (B) `assurance` is persisted
verbatim and is the only place `mfaRequired: true` survives into the approval
record, so key-cape and informed-decision owe it a documented shape; (C)
`informed-decision`'s `view_hash` has nowhere to ride into an entry, whose body
is deliberately discarded — v1 correlates by `(approval_id, subject,
approved_at)` via audit-core, and binding the hash into the entry itself would
be a gate-house doctrine question before it is a change here. T01 stays
`progress`; none of these block this repository's half.

2026-09-09 (second): took T01 as far as this repository can reach. Writing the
approver-surface requirements exposed a gap in T01's own "approver evidence"
clause: an entry recorded `subject_id`, `assurance` and `evidence_ref` but
nothing about *what kind of principal* bound the approval, and `subject_id` is a
naming convention rather than a verified claim. `/entries` is not restricted by
principal type — only `/consume` is, to service/agent — and the
`approval-engine-operator` client holds `approval:approve`, so a service
principal can supply approver evidence today and was until now indistinguishable
from a human in the evidence chain. Whether a non-human may approve at all is
approval doctrine and belongs to `gate-house`; making it legible is ours.
Schema v4 adds `entries.principal_type`, populated only from the verified token,
surfaced on the object and on the audit evidence path but deliberately not on
the least-disclosure claim. Legacy entries stay `null` rather than being
back-filled into a `human` claim nobody made — the same reasoning as `pdp_path`
under `GH-DEC-2026-008`. Tests:
`test_entry_records_the_verified_principal_type`,
`test_non_human_approver_is_recorded_as_such`,
`test_v3_entries_migrate_to_v4_without_inventing_a_principal_type`, and the
v2 migration test now asserts the current version rather than a hard-coded 3.
124 tests pass. The existing `migrate` initContainer in
`deploy/approval-engine.yaml` covers the upgrade, but the manifest's pinned
image digest predates v4 — this change ships only with a re-pinned release
image. Also corrected two errors in the requirements issued earlier today: agent
tokens are *not* barred from `approval:approve`, and an empty `assurance` object
is accepted rather than refused. T01 remains `progress`: what is left is
key-cape owning the registrations, credential custody from railiance-platform,
and the open scope question (A) above — none of them reachable from here.

2026-09-09 (third): `railiance-platform` (`RPF-WP-0035-T06`) asked who presents
`approval-engine-operator` and refused to guess — correctly, since it carries
the widest scope set of the pair. The answer is that nobody does. Nothing in
this repository obtains an OAuth token: the engine only verifies them, its one
outbound credential is the mounted `audit-token` for audit-core delivery, and
`pep.py` is a consumer-side helper for PEPs that present their own. Scope by
scope the bundle does not describe a single actor — `approval:approve` now
belongs to `informed-decision`'s human client, `approval:emit` is redundant
because the server emits its own heartbeat with no token, and no requester
identity has ever been settled for `approval:create`. It was a convenience
bundle written when this repo assumed a lifecycle operator would exist.
Answered (b): cancel `CCR-2026-0020` as an owner decision rather than leave it
`in_flight`; verifier custody `CCR-2026-0018` is unaffected and stays correct.
Recorded in `docs/keycape-service-registrations.md`, with the rule that a future
presenter gets a registration narrowed to its own scopes and that
`approval:approve` must not travel with the operational scopes — schema v4 makes
a service bind legible, but legibility is not permission, and the should-it
question remains gate-house's. `secrets-engine-approval` is unaffected: it has a
real presenter and is the client that unblocks T05. T01 stays `progress`.

2026-09-10: three inbound items, all answered; one is a live blocker on the
human client and it is not ours to fix. (i) `key-cape` reports that a human
access token **cannot carry `tenant:platform` today**: `effectiveTenant(user)`
resolves the claim from the directory record, `domain.User.Tenant` is populated
by no adapter, and every human token falls back to `tenant:coulomb`; the
per-client `tenant` field is read only on the client-credentials path. Our exact
equality would refuse such a token, surfacing as a rejected approval rather than
a registration defect. We answered **(2) registration-bound**, matching decision
`5ed3fb35-eca9-413a-82b9-95171ba85bf6` and symmetric with the service clients,
and only because registrations are static, deployment-owned, and dynamic client
registration is excluded by design. (ii) `gate-house` `GH-DEC-2026-013` names
the consequence of exactly that: a registration-supplied tenant is the client's
say-so, not the directory's, and exact matching cannot see the difference — the
same shape as our own `pdp_digest` finding one layer down. They were right that
our wording implied a fact about the person. `docs/caller-authentication.md` now
states that the check is **store isolation** and not membership, that a
registration-supplied tenant is admissible for admission but **not** for any
future doctrine turning on the approver's own membership, and that provenance
will be recorded on the entry the way v4 records `principal_type` once the claim
carries it. (iii) `informed-decision` R3, answered in `docs/approval-claim.md`:
`view_hash` and `binding.digest` are **not** the same hash and must not be
merged. Three hashes, three questions — which act (five fields), which decision
request (`pdp_digest`), what a person was shown (`view_hash`). Recommended that
their binding document *carry* our digest as a field rather than re-canonicalize
the same five fields, so the estate has one canonicalization of the act with a
detectable mismatch instead of two independently correct answers. Also accepted
from key-cape: `approval:read` added to the human client, and a documented
`assurance` shape (`level`/`methods`/`mfa`/`source`/`at`) — with `at` fixed to
carry the original authentication instant through session reuse, which matters
here because this engine stores that object verbatim as the only downstream
record that MFA happened. T01 stays `progress`; the human client cannot be
registered until the tenant source is settled by its owner.

2026-09-10: GH-DEC-2026-016 supplies the previously missing NC-03 doctrine.
Approvals explicitly declared as discharging human-in-the-loop or dual-control
requirements must refuse non-human binds at issue. T01 owns the declaration,
engine/API enforcement, predecessor inheritance and negative legacy migration,
verified human identity provenance, tests and subsequent deployed proof. This
return changes neither existing rows nor production admission. The new rule is
not satisfied merely by the already-recorded principal_type field. The separate
R3 digest-exclusion condition is completed in T06 below.

### Declared human-control implementation — 2026-09-10

GH-DEC-2026-016 source implementation now records strict `human_control` intent
at request creation and refuses non-human binding at `add_entry` / `/entries`.
The creator may still be a service drafting a request; approval judgment comes
from the verified entry identity. This maps the ruling's bind/issue boundary to
this engine's two-step API and does not confer approval on an unapproved draft.
Schema v5 defaults legacy rows to undeclared, preserves act digests and recorded
entries, and inherits the declaration on supersession. An existing successor
with a mismatched declaration conflicts atomically. Spoofed request-body identity
cannot change the verified JWT type; invalid persisted human evidence also fails
claim/consume. The outbox retains the declaration with its existing atomic write.

All 22 new cases fail on the previous implementation and pass after correction;
the full suite passes 152 tests. Persistent v4 migration, RS256/JWKS HTTP calls,
ordinary service compatibility, human quorum, rollback and successor cases are
included. Actual Secrets Engine claim parsing accepts both new flag values;
this is wire compatibility, not adoption of the new requirement. KeyCape's
current source fixes human type on its PKCE/user path and service type on its
client-credentials path; native issuer/human proof is still outstanding.

T01 remains progress for exact requester/human registration and native proof.
T03 owns the matching schema-v5 image and admitted deployment. T05 with
SECRETS-WP-0009-T03 and INFD-WP-0001-T08 must explicitly declare and require
human_control for the factory human-approval workflow; old generic approvals
must not be treated as satisfying it. Evidence:
`docs/evidence/2026-09-10-human-control.json`. No production approval or database
migration occurred during these tests.

## Harden durable storage and migrations

```task
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "2bef94ca-9482-5eff-9bd9-39adef292a78"
```

Define the production persistence, backup/restore, migration, concurrency, and
recovery posture. Prove schema upgrades preserve existing approvals and that
crash recovery cannot separate mutations from outbox evidence.

Acceptance: schema version is explicit; production serve refuses an unmigrated
or in-memory store; migration is a separate repeatable command; backup uses
SQLite's online backup API and integrity verification; restore is documented as
a stopped-single-writer operation; tests cover legacy upgrade, backup/restore,
and outbox atomicity after restart.

Completed 2026-09-02: schema v2 migration, production no-auto-migrate gate,
integrity/status surface, online mode-0600 backup, stopped-writer restore runbook,
retry-attempt state, and migration/backup/atomicity tests are in place.

## Package and deploy the service

```task
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002-T03
status: wait
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "f0aa2e6d-19e6-5b43-886c-efa4e3de5f22"
```

Add the governed image/deployment surface, health and readiness behavior,
resource bounds, and fail-closed caller configuration. A local WSGI development
server is not production evidence.

Acceptance: a digest-pin-ready image and single-writer StatefulSet manifest
exist with non-root/read-only-root controls, PVC, migration init container,
resource bounds, probes, and default-deny network policy. Live completion also
requires an immutable image digest, KeyCape registrations, audit sender
credential, successful rollout, and restart/restore evidence.

Repository implementation complete 2026-09-02: the digest-pin-ready non-root
image builds and runs; the single-writer StatefulSet, PVC, migration init,
read-only root, resources, probes, and default-deny policies pass client dry-run.
Waiting on release digest, KeyCape/audit registrations and credentials, rollout,
restart, and restore evidence.

2026-09-06 image preparation (GLAS-WP-0015 request; credential-independent half):
built and validated locally against the agreed tenant and current schema.

- Build: `make image-build` off the digest-pinned base
  `python:3.12-slim@sha256:d764629c…`. Local manifest-list digest
  `sha256:85e46ddf47b3ac0cdab620163a7b034027451dff286b63ecff6a2493d7a57ecc`.
  **This is a local build digest, not a release digest** — the manifest still
  carries `REPLACE_WITH_RELEASE_DIGEST` because pinning requires a push to
  `forgejo.coulomb.social`, which needs registry credentials this session does
  not hold.
- Runtime identity: `uid=10001(approval) gid=10001(approval)`, non-root as
  required.
- Schema: image carries `LATEST_SCHEMA_VERSION = 3`, matching the migrated
  store, and `Engine` tenant default `tenant:platform`.
- First-install migration (no prior DB): `migrate` then `verify` on a fresh
  volume both report `schema_version: 3`, `schema_current: true`,
  `integrity: ["ok"]`, `foreign_key_violations: 0`, `persistent: true`.
- Fail-closed configuration proven in the image, not only in tests:
  `serve --production --db :memory:` refuses with "production requires a
  persistent database"; `serve --production` on a real DB without audit
  configuration refuses with "production requires authenticated audit
  delivery".
- Manifest inputs: `kubectl apply --dry-run=client` passes for the namespace,
  service, and StatefulSet with the new `--tenant tenant:platform`.

Scan gate NOT met: no scanner (`trivy`, `grype`, `docker scout`) is installed on
this workstation, so no vulnerability scan was run and none is claimed. The
inventory a scanner needs is the pinned base above plus
`cryptography==50.0.1`, `PyJWT==2.13.0`, `waitress==3.0.2`, `cffi==2.1.1`,
`pycparser==3.0`, `pip==25.0.1`.

T03 stays `wait`: still no release digest, no KeyCape/audit credentials, no
rollout, and no restart/restore evidence. Nothing here is a deploy.

2026-09-06 scan gate — run, and it failed on the sanctioned base. Full record in
`docs/image-scan-2026-09-06.md`. Scanned with trivy (no scanner was installed;
this one needed none). Findings are all inherited from the base image, none in
`approval_engine` code.

Two fixes applied. The base pin was stale at Debian 13.5 while upstream is
13.6 — bumping the digest removed 30 HIGH and 47 MEDIUM. And pip, which held all
10 MEDIUM Python findings, is now absent from the runtime image via a two-stage
build; it is a build-time tool and had no business in a running approval
service.

What remains is a decision, not a task. Three CRITICALs persist on Debian, all
`perl-base` (`CVE-2026-13221`, `CVE-2026-42496`, `CVE-2026-8376`), **none with
an upstream fix**, in a package this service never invokes and which Debian
marks `Essential: yes`. An Alpine variant carries no perl and scans 0 CRITICAL /
7 HIGH / 1 MEDIUM against Debian's 3 / 51 / 56. It is proven viable — musl
wheels resolve without a toolchain, the full suite passes on musl at 111, and
non-root identity, schema v3, `tenant:platform`, fresh-store migrate/verify and
both production fail-closed gates all hold in the image. It is parked in
`Containerfile.alpine` as a candidate; `Containerfile` remains the sanctioned
base.

Nothing was pushed. Pushing the Debian variant would pin three unfixable
CRITICALs into a release digest, and choosing the runtime C library for this
service is not a call to make silently. `deploy/approval-engine.yaml` still
carries `REPLACE_WITH_RELEASE_DIGEST`. Awaiting an owner answer on the base
(Alpine, a documented perl exception on glibc, or distroless — unevaluated) and
on which scanner is sanctioned.

2026-09-06 both answered; release candidate scans clean. The operator adopted
Alpine/musl as the sanctioned base and trivy as the sanctioned scanner.
`Containerfile.alpine` is promoted to `Containerfile` and the Debian variant is
retired rather than kept as an option.

Promoting Alpine left 7 HIGH and 1 MEDIUM, all `libuuid` 2.42.1-r0 and all with
fixes in 2.42.3. The runtime stage now requires `libuuid>=2.42.3-r1` — a version
floor rather than a floating upgrade, so the base stays digest-pinned and a
vulnerable libuuid fails the build instead of shipping. **The candidate now
scans 0 CRITICAL / 0 HIGH / 0 MEDIUM / 0 LOW.**

Verified on that exact artifact: non-root `uid=10001`, pip absent, schema v3,
tenant default `tenant:platform`, fresh-store `migrate`+`verify` clean, restart
persistence via re-`verify` on the same volume, both production fail-closed
refusals, 111 tests on musl, and `kubectl --dry-run` passing.

The gate is now reproducible rather than a one-off: `make image-scan` fails on
any CRITICAL or HIGH, and `make image-release` runs build then scan then push so
a failing scan blocks the push by construction.

Still `wait`, and now for exactly one reason: `docker push` was attempted and
refused by this session's sandbox as an outward-facing publish. It was not
worked around. No release digest exists, so the manifest keeps
`REPLACE_WITH_RELEASE_DIGEST`; an operator must run `make image-release` (or the
push and `docker inspect`) and pin the returned registry manifest digest — never
the tag, never the local image id
`sha256:73333f5ceb55e48192e3095cb2e2a741cdc6ff0be2f18128301072b4a6b6eb9d`.
Rollout, restart and restore evidence remain gated on the KeyCape registrations
and audit sender credential.

2026-09-06 published (`glas-harness`, standing production authorization). The
push above succeeded outside this repo's session. Registry tag `0.1.0` resolves
to OCI index digest
`sha256:73333f5ceb55e48192e3095cb2e2a741cdc6ff0be2f18128301072b4a6b6eb9d`, with
linux/amd64 manifest `sha256:2064d5378e01801ecf9966ccec9c93aadd16d6b404ef4890983d89fa738c164c`.
Both `image:` references in `deploy/approval-engine.yaml` pin the index digest
at `b51d174`.

The index digest equals the local image id recorded above, which is a property
of the containerd/OCI image store rather than evidence of anything — the
publication evidence is the successful push and the remote index lookup, and
this repo verified the digest resolves against the registry independently. An
earlier caution in this workplan that the value was "a local image id, not a
release digest" was wrong on that point; the digest is correct and the pin is
sound.

2026-09-07 acceptance re-checked against the whole list, because a published
image reads like a finished task. T03's acceptance requires an immutable digest
**and** KeyCape registrations, an audit sender credential, a successful rollout,
and restart/restore evidence. Only the first is now met. `kubectl -n
approval-engine get all` returns nothing and no secrets exist, so nothing is
deployed; production `serve` refuses to start without authenticated audit
delivery, so a rollout attempted today would fail closed by design and would
prove nothing. **T03 stays `wait`** — on T01's registrations and the audit
credential, not on anything this repo owns.

2026-09-09: schema v4 (`entries.principal_type`, T01) gave this task a new
drift surface, now closed in the only way that survives review. The manifest's
pinned pair is self-consistent — the published artifact migrates to 3 and serves
3 — so nothing fails, and that is exactly the dangerous shape: the deployment
reads healthy while the assumption "the deployment records approver principal
type" is false. `deploy/README.md` now states that the pin predates schema v4
and that carrying the new evidence requires cutting a new image at gate 3, and
`tests/test_deploy_manifest.py::test_pinned_image_schema_drift_is_acknowledged`
holds the statement: while the manifest pins the artifact
`docs/image-scan-2026-09-06.md` describes, that record's schema version must
match this repository or the runbook must say plainly that it does not. Verified
to fail when the acknowledgement is removed. `docs/storage-operations.md` gains
the v4 section (additive `ALTER TABLE`, legacy entries stay `NULL` and are never
back-filled to `human`, downgrade unsupported). T03 stays `wait`: gates 1 and 2
are unchanged and nothing is deployed. 125 tests pass.

### Schema-v5 release candidate — 2026-09-10

The earlier schema drift is resolved in the published candidate, source
`be1a388a848cf59e9ff3a5420f88a70ca0a52e7e`, registry tag
`0.1.0-hfact-be1a388`, immutable digest
`sha256:251941a5cb2724b57cc32cff6b693b1ab0be695bee4f56f02d51961189c0fa49`.
Both migration and serving references now pin it. The sanctioned HIGH/CRITICAL
scan passes with zero findings. Disposable container checks prove schema v5,
v4 migration without inferred human declaration, nonhuman bind refusal,
human bind/claim/consume and restart persistence; packaged store bytes match
committed source. These checks use synthetic local identities and no network.
See `docs/evidence/2026-09-10-human-control-image.json` for the exact evidence.

T03 remains `wait`: native KeyCape requester/approver registration and audit
sender custody still precede rollout, live persistence/outbox/restore proof.
The factory requester and PEP must explicitly declare/require human_control in
T05 with SECRETS-WP-0009-T03 and INFD-WP-0001-T08. No production database was
migrated, no workload deployed and no factory/model request admitted.

## Wire outbox delivery and reconciliation

```task
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002-T04
status: wait
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "777a5cf5-c1db-5e07-8de6-ab109db5ccdc"
```

Deliver the local outbox asynchronously to audit-core, preserve event-id
deduplication, publish lag/depth signals, emit the declared heartbeat, and prove
the Gate House reconciliation contract against accepted event counts.

Acceptance: the sender adapts the local event to audit-core's authenticated
HTTP ingest, reuses event id as idempotency key, rereads a mounted token file,
marks drained only on accepted/duplicate, retains retryable failures, exposes
attempt/lag state, and emits the declared heartbeat. Live reconciliation waits
on `AUDIT-WP-0009-T04/T06/T09`; do not invent that receiver surface here.

Repository implementation complete 2026-09-02: audit-core envelope adaptation,
event-id idempotency, mounted-token reread, accepted/duplicate handling,
retry-attempt/lag metrics, and periodic heartbeats are tested.

2026-09-02 follow-up: drain tests now cover HTTP 200 duplicate as drained and
urllib `HTTPError` 503 as pending. Waiting on the audit-core sender
registration/ingress and receiver-owned reconciliation work
(`AUDIT-WP-0009-T04/T06/T09`).

2026-09-08 critical-path return: `docs/audit-source-registration.md` resolves
Audit Core's tenant and redaction questions from the existing sanctioned store
contract: exact `tenant:platform`, source `approval-engine`, write-only,
load-bearing, explicit `redact`. The outbox example and envelope test now pin
the same tenant. This closes those source-input waits, not live registration.
Platform still owes linked receiver/sender custody and the protected token;
T04 stays wait for admission and live drain/reconciliation evidence.

2026-09-10: audit-core landed the detection half (`AUDIT-WP-0009` T04/T06/T07
at `b098fb1`, contract in their `docs/stream-completeness.md`), so the sender
side is no longer describing a cadence that does not operate. Implemented the
per-class heartbeat contract: `HEARTBEAT_CLASSES` covers `issuance`, `use`,
`supersession` and `revocation`, each asserting `nothing-to-report` for itself,
all four written in one transaction. The previous single per-source beat was
exactly the shape audit-core rules inadequate — it is discharged by whichever
class is busy, so a silent `revocation` stream hides behind `issuance`, and
`revocation` is the only silence here that matters. Heartbeats now carry
`type: audit-core.heartbeat` with `class` and `assertion` on `data` rather than
inside our details object. The first beat is emitted at startup, not one
interval later, because a declared-but-never-sent class is their
`no_heartbeat_since_registration` finding rather than a skip — `heartbeat_due`
already returned true on an empty outbox and that is now pinned by test.
`docs/audit-source-registration.md` declares `heartbeat_classes` at 172800s for
all four (twice the deployed 86400s default, so one missed cycle is not a
finding and two are), records the reconciliation surface and both bounds, and
restates the residual audit-core stated on every response: counts and
heartbeats cover loss, outage, drain failure and accident, and neither covers
this engine lying about itself, since a compromised emitter suppresses the
event and its own heartbeat together. Tests: per-class emission including
`revocation`, atomicity under outbox failure, the envelope placement, and that
an ordinary event gains no heartbeat fields. 155 pass. T04 stays `wait`: live
drain still needs the sender registration and credential admission, and the
`heartbeat_classes` values above are a request until audit-core accepts them.

## Prove one live PEP consumption path

```task
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002-T05
status: wait
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "3196fb77-3df0-5358-ae12-2d07bac12041"
```

Integrate one protected-system consumer under `GH-DEC-2026-003`: claim before
decision, CAS consume after ALLOW and before side effect, same-digest retry,
different-digest conflict, spent-on-failure behavior, and no protected action
when approval-engine is unavailable.

Acceptance: a repeatable harness proves the PEP sequence against the real HTTP
surface without performing a protected action; live closure requires a
secrets-engine-owned handler and evidence that no OpenBao call occurs on every
failure case. This repo may supply the protocol client and fixture, but may not
claim the consumer's side effect.

Repository implementation complete 2026-09-02: the HTTP PEP client and
fail-closed sequencing harness prove claim-before-decision and CAS-consume-before
callback, including unavailable, DENY, digest mismatch, and conflict paths.

2026-09-02 follow-up: secrets-engine shipped the PEP consume-before-OpenBao
handler (`src/secrets_engine/approval_consume.py`; inbox `0e04b4e2`). This
engine's client now maps HTTP 409/401/403/404/503 and unreachability, requires
the canonical digest, and refuses a decision-shaped consume payload. The
repeatable harness in `tests/test_pep.py` drives the real HTTP surface: first
consume then same-digest retry, different-digest conflict, spent-on-failure
claim refusal, and unreachable-engine callback suppression. Waiting on live
closure: this service deployed (T03) and a durable consume binding served
(`SECRETS-WP-0007-T04` / `SECRETS-WP-0008-T02`). This repo does not claim the
OpenBao side effect.

2026-09-06 follow-up: secrets-engine reports its PIP join is implemented and
blocked on deployment, not contract (inbox `61ae1174`). Review of its
`validate_action_authorization` shows a real envelope divergence: it expects a
`state-hub`-authority `ActionAuthorization` (`id`, `status`, `superseded_by`,
`request`, `approvals.entries`, policy pin) while this engine serves the
governed approval-claim (`approval_id`, `state`/`valid_now`, `binding`,
`freshness`, `reason_code`, `issuer: approval-engine`). Both declare
`schema_version` `0.1`, so the mismatch surfaces as a field/authority error
rather than a version error. Recorded in `docs/approval-consumption.md`;
reconciling the envelopes is a `GH-DEC-2026-003` cross-repo change, not a
unilateral edit here. T05 stays `wait`: still no deployed base URL (T03).

2026-09-06 ruling: the claim-envelope question is settled. `GH-DEC-2026-005`
confirms all three requested dispositions — the approval-claim is the step-1
artifact, `ActionAuthorization` is not required and MUST NOT be served from the
claim endpoint, and a PEP validates across the claim and the step-2
`DecisionEnvelope`. Gate House recorded the split as doctrine (a PIP must not
republish the PDP's decision) and struck the `provenance.authority ==
"state-hub"` requirement explicitly. flex-auth accepted as `FLEX-DEC-2026-006`,
argued against its own proposal, and traced the bad authority constant to a
fixture rather than prose. **This engine changes nothing: the claim schema
stands as published.** `APPROVAL-IN-0002` is closed. T05 remains `wait` on T03
deployment plus the secrets-engine validator split and its
`secrets-engine-approval` KeyCape registration (already requested verbatim in
`docs/keycape-service-registrations.md`).

2026-09-06 follow-on (T01): `GH-DEC-2026-005` assigned this engine a
compensating obligation. secrets-engine has implemented the split and reports
it no longer verifies the distinct-approver threshold independently; Gate House
accepted that as correct on layering and as a real reduction in defence in
depth, requiring instead that the threshold evaluation be reconstructable from
this engine's state transitions and its use outbox row under §9.6. Implemented:
`approval.issuance` and `approval.use` now carry a `threshold` object
(`required_count`, `distinct_approver_count`, `threshold_met`, and `approvers`
with `approved_at` plus assurance/evidence refs). Tests prove reconstruction
from the use row alone and that the claim still discloses no approver
identities. Documented in `docs/outbox-contract.md`.

2026-09-06 follow-on (T05): flex-auth asked whether this engine should publish
an action/target vocabulary mapping between the claim binding and their policy
package before `SECRETS-WP-0007-T04` makes destroy reachable. Answered no, and
recorded why in `docs/approval-claim.md`: a PIP asserting that one vocabulary's
action *means* another's would author policy semantics it does not own, and a
wrong mapping silently accepts a claim approved for a different action.
`binding.pdp_digest` is the correspondence — it compares the PDP's digest to
the PDP's digest with no translation. Implemented the part that was ours:
`pdp_digest` is now always present on the claim and `null` when the approval
was not issued against a PDP decision, so absence is a stated fact rather than
a missing key, and the schema requires it as nullable. A PEP on a privileged
lane must refuse a null. Both published examples were contradicting the schema;
fixed, and `tests/test_examples.py` now validates every example against it.

2026-09-06 follow-on (T01/T05): implemented `GH-DEC-2026-008`, which requires
`binding.pdp_digest` on the `GH-DEC-2026-003` path and directed this engine to
record the PDP digest at issue and have the claim state which approvals those
are. Schema v3 adds `approvals.pdp_path`; `create` refuses `pdp_path: true`
without a `pdp_digest`, so the failure lands at issue rather than at the
protected side effect. The claim exposes `binding.pdp_path`, making
`pdp_path: true` a guarantee that `pdp_digest` is non-null. Intent is declared,
never inferred from an incidental digest, and never back-filled: legacy rows
migrate to `false` and a successor inherits its predecessor's declaration.
Schema, both examples, and a v2→v3 migration test cover it (102 tests).

2026-09-06 follow-up (envelope target): flex-auth published
`binding.approval_binding_digest` (`FLEX-DEC-2026-007`) — the request digest
material with `context.approval` removed — because a claim-bearing request's
`request_digest` covers the carried claim and can therefore never equal a
`pdp_digest` recorded at issue. A consumer obeying `GH-DEC-2026-008` against
`request_digest` would have failed closed permanently on every claim, which is
the defect secrets-engine and flex-auth both hit. The value this engine records
at issue is unchanged and correct; only the consumer-side comparison target
needed naming. `schemas/approval_claim.schema.json` and `docs/approval-claim.md`
now name `approval_binding_digest` as the execute-time target and state that
`request_digest` is never it. No code change was required, so T05 stays `wait`
on the deployed base URL (T03).

## Production preflight — 2026-09-06 Glas deployment session

User authorized production deployment. Live cluster inspection confirms no
approval-engine workload/service. KeyCape exists at service keycape in sso;
live issuer is https://kc.coulomb.social. Corrected those two stale deployment
inputs. Neither secrets-engine-approval nor approval-engine-operator appears
in the live KeyCape client configuration. The audit sender-scope ConfigMap
currently registers only user-engine. No credential values were emitted.

T03 remains wait: provision the two KeyCape registrations and protected client
credentials, register/custody the approval-engine audit sender, align the
store/client tenant contract, then build/scan and pin the release image. The
manifest currently says platform while requested KeyCape registrations say
tenant:coulomb (and the secrets-engine policy says tenant:platform); exact
claim/store comparison requires an owner-consistent choice before activation.
Do not substitute guessed values or start production without audit delivery.
The secrets-engine PDP was independently deployed by FLEX-WP-0021-T04; this
does not satisfy approval service readiness.


## Registry publication — 2026-09-06, Glas deployment session

The previously blocked push succeeded under the operator's standing production
deployment authorization. Registry tag `0.1.0` resolves to OCI index digest
`sha256:73333f5ceb55e48192e3095cb2e2a741cdc6ff0be2f18128301072b4a6b6eb9d`.
The linux/amd64 image manifest is
`sha256:2064d5378e01801ecf9966ccec9c93aadd16d6b404ef4890983d89fa738c164c`.
Both deployment images now pin the registry index digest, verified remotely
following publication. Its equality to the earlier local image identifier is
not the evidence of publication; the successful push and remote index lookup are.

No StatefulSet rollout yet: live KeyCape registrations and audit sender/token
admission remain outstanding. APPROVAL-WP-0002-T03 stays wait for those gates.

## Make presentation exclusion a tested binding contract

```task
id: APPROVAL-WP-0002-T06
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "1c6d6936-1a16-5f41-ba7d-5cfbd4231bf9"
```

GH-DEC-2026-015 §4 conditions informed-decision's nested binding.digest on an
explicit normative presentation exclusion and a regression that exposes widening.
The native digest MUST cover exactly the five act fields and MUST NOT acquire
presentation fields. Callers keep presentation outside effect scope; arbitrary
nested target scope is preserved, not silently filtered.

Completed 2026-09-10: docs/approval-claim.md states the rule. The durable issue/claim
regression varies view_hash, brief, packet, highlights, locale, UI release and a
presentation wrapper while proving the stored act/digest remain unchanged. It
also varies all five act fields independently and requires the digest to change.
A deliberate whole-binding canonicalization mutation fails the regression; the
production algorithm is unchanged. Evidence: docs/evidence/2026-09-10-presentation-exclusion.json.
This supplies the engine condition for INFD-IN-0004; actual informed-decision
adoption remains its existing work. T01 retains GH-DEC-2026-016 and native identity,
T03/T05 deployment/real consumption remain open. No live approval was issued.