Answer flex-auth B3: the emitter is the section 4 source, not the archive

AUDIT-IN-0005. flex-auth produces the decision record, declares no §11
emission guarantee, and declined to take the reading that moves the
obligation to audit-core. audit-core declines it too, on its own authority:
class, cadence and detection surface are properties of emitting; audit-core
cannot detect non-production; the obligations already sit on each sender
registration; archive-as-source would make §11's check vacuous; and no
access-engine sender is registered at all.

Binds audit-core, does not rule §11 — gate-house still owns that, so
flex-auth's G2 stays open.

Reflexive half: audit-core's own chain-head attestation emission is now
declared in layer.yaml rather than only in docs/integrity.md prose, and
asserted against the CronJob and the contract by test.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 63291@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8bd77868-ca68-4f49-bb1e-d539ecc0d703

intakes/intakes.md

@@ -1,5 +1,78 @@
 # Intake records
 
+## AUDIT-IN-0005 — Which repository is the §4 source of evidence for the decision record
+
+```yaml
+id: AUDIT-IN-0005
+kind: intake
+title: 'Which repository is the §4 source of evidence for the decision record
+  (flex-auth B3 / declared gap G2)'
+status: closed
+origin: cross-repo
+origin_ref: FLEX-WP-0030 B3 / flex-auth conformance gap G2
+priority: high
+owner: audit-core
+requested_by: flex-auth
+description: >
+  §11 requires every repository catalogued in §4 as a source of evidence to
+  declare its emission guarantee — class, cadence and the detection surface the
+  governing cadence profile requires — in its machine-readable layer
+  declaration, and says a source declaring none is not conforming.
+
+  flex-auth (access-engine) produces the decision record and declares none. Two
+  readings are defensible from the text: flex-auth is a §4 source and is
+  non-conformant today, or audit-core is the source and flex-auth is merely the
+  producer of an artifact audit-core is the source of. flex-auth declined to
+  pick the second — the reading that favours it — and asked audit-core to say
+  which side of the line audit-core holds. The custodian confirmed audit-core
+  can answer without waiting on gate-house, and that answering does not close
+  G2. Estate-wide view: the-custodian/docs/assessments/2026-09-21-layer-declaration-boundaries.md.
+created: '2026-09-21'
+updated: '2026-09-21'
+outcome: declined-with-the-surface-offered
+closed: '2026-09-21'
+resolution: 'audit-core is NOT the §4 source of evidence for the decision
+  record. The emitter is, and for the decision record the emitter is
+  access-engine. Five reasons, none of them preference. (1) Class, cadence and
+  detection surface are all properties of the act of emitting; audit-core
+  produces no decision record, and told gate-house before this question existed
+  that it cannot detect non-production at all — AUDIT-IN-0003 against
+  GH-DEC-2026-014 limit 3. A declaration here would promise behaviour audit-core
+  cannot observe. (2) It is audit-core''s standing doctrine in writing:
+  completeness at the boundary is the emitter''s property, not the archive''s
+  (AUDIT-IN-0001), and emission atomicity at the source is an AUDIT-WP-0009
+  non-goal. Taking the role now would reverse for the asking repository a
+  boundary held against gate-house and approval-engine. (3) The operative shape
+  already assigns it: evidence_kind and heartbeat_classes sit on each SENDER
+  registration, per source and per class, for all four registered sources,
+  because §11 and the cadence profile both make the classification the source''s
+  published one. (4) Archive-as-source makes §11 vacuous — every emission
+  obligation would land on the one repository that can observe no emission, and
+  no source could ever be non-conforming. That is the §9.1 defect §11 says it has
+  corrected four times. (5) As fact: no sender named access-engine or flex-auth
+  is registered, no token, no ingress, no scope row — the decision record never
+  reaches audit-core custody, and a repository cannot be the source of evidence
+  it has never received. WHAT AUDIT-CORE OWES INSTEAD, and it is not nothing: the
+  rare load-bearing form access-engine expects — heartbeat per class plus
+  reconciliation, never rate — is built and registerable through an intake, with
+  the standing bound that neither control covers a source suppressing an event
+  and its own count together (§16). WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO: it binds audit-core,
+  it does not rule §11. gate-house authors §11 and still owns the ruling, so G2
+  does not close on this record alone — this is audit-core''s confirmation, not
+  gate-house''s ruling. REFLEXIVE HALF: asked which side of the line it holds,
+  audit-core answered about itself too. It emits no event into another
+  repository''s custody, but it does produce the chain-head attestation, whose
+  class, cadence and detection surface were stated only in docs/integrity.md
+  prose. They are now declared in layer.yaml under emission_guarantee
+  (load-bearing, rare, daily 17 3 * * *, 168h freshness window degrading
+  tamper_evidence to False with the reason recorded) and asserted by
+  tests/test_layer_conformance.py against the CronJob and the contract. Leaving
+  it in prose while charging another repository with declaring theirs would have
+  been the flattering reading of an unruled boundary.'
+recorded_in: docs/section-4-source-of-evidence.md
+work: AUDIT-WP-0009-T13
+```
+
 ## AUDIT-IN-0003 — Register informed-decision as a load-bearing sender; commitment-only payload doctrine
 
 ```yaml