All three v0.4 findings landed in v0.5 (local outbox, machine-readable
declaration, §14 arithmetic). §9.6's load-bearing/attributive split and
§16's ruling on approval custody both improve on what audit-core raised.
Findings, all correcting audit-core's own contribution: (1) the local
outbox closes accidental omission, not the compromised-source case §9.6
opens with — a compromised emitter can decline the insert or drop the row
before drain; §16 rests a ruling on that conflation. (2) cadence is the
only control touching the residual and is a SHOULD, and rate-based
detection is weakest for the rare negative events §9.6 says matter most —
recommend positive reconciliation for load-bearing low-volume classes.
(3) §3.3's Evidence row states an availability/independence trade as a
property of evidence engines.
Adds layer.yaml in ops-warden's reference form, per §11.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WpeL68AWHqtqPQZEXY5kFe
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4040362@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 4fd0fd24-2ee8-4413-bd67-43bd79ca73f1
gate-house incorporated all of audit-core's AUDIT-IN-0001 corrections and
generalized the omission bound into §9.6 as estate-wide doctrine.
Findings: (1) §9.4's emission MUST is safe only if the outbox is local;
"or equivalent" admits a synchronous emit to audit-core inside the state
transaction, which would make an audit outage an inability to revoke —
recommend one sentence requiring the queue live in approval-engine's own
store. (2) §11's new who-must-declare rule is not mechanically checkable
despite §11 claiming it is; recommend a canonical frontmatter form.
(3) §14 says "seven of fifteen" and "remaining eight" but enumerates nine;
the catalog has 16 estate-authored rows.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WpeL68AWHqtqPQZEXY5kFe
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4040362@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 4fd0fd24-2ee8-4413-bd67-43bd79ca73f1
gate-house proposed (security layer model v0.3 §9.4) that audit-core own
the tamper-evident record of approvals while approval-engine owns the
operative state. Assented, with two corrections and one condition.
Correction 1: INTENT principle 6 overstated the delivered guarantee.
docs/integrity.md is authoritative — an in-database chain does not
withstand a database owner without the external chain-head attestation,
and even then it is not WORM. Principle 6 now points at that bound.
Correction 2: the chain proves alteration and truncation, not omission
at source. A suppressed revocation leaves the chain intact.
Condition: approval-engine must guarantee emission atomicity, so an
approval cannot change state without the event being durably queued in
the same transaction. Not a task audit-core can discharge for it.
Boundary: no approval-validity query will be exposed — that would be
deciding early under §6.1.
Also declares audit-core's layer (Engine, not a decision point), which
§11 requires and INTENT.md was missing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WpeL68AWHqtqPQZEXY5kFe
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 4040362@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 4fd0fd24-2ee8-4413-bd67-43bd79ca73f1
